The clothing workers of Chicago, 1910-1922

ILLINOIS LIBRARY

AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

BOOKSTACKS

The person charging this material is re-
sponsible for its return to the library from
which it was withdrawn on or before the
Latest Date stamped below.

Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons
for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from
the University.
To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

NOV031998

MAR 1 0 1999

L161— O-1096

THfc LIBRARY
OF THE

01

THE CLOTHING WORKERS
OF CHICAGO

1910-1922

THE CHICAGO JOINT BOARD

AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA

CHICAGO. 1922

THIS book on " The Clothing Workers of Chicago " is
presented by the Chicago Joint Board to the delegates to
the Fifth Biennial Convention of the Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers, in Chicago, May 8, 1922. The book was pre-
pared by the Research Department of the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers, under the direction of Mr. Leo Wolman,
'with the co-operation of Miss Eleanor Mack, Mr. H. K.
Herwitz, of the Research Department, and Mr. Paul Wan-
der. The third part on Government in Industry was written
by Mr. Paul Wander.

5G402'

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Chapter I — The Chicago Joint Board ............... 1

Part I — The Growth of Organization.

Chapter II— The Strike of 1910 .................... 17

Chapter III — The Development of Arbitration ........ 49

Chapter IV — The Break From the Garment Workers ... 72

Chapter V— The Strike of 1915 .................... 95

Chapter VI — The Organization of the Chicago Market 109

Part II — Wages and Hours.

Chapter VII— Wages and Hours, 1911-1921 ......... 125

Chapter VIII — The Great Wage Arbitrations ........

Part III — Government in Industry.

Chapter IX — Introduction ........................ 189

Chapter X — The Powers of Management ............. 196

Chapter XI — Discipline and Discharge. . ....... ..... 229

Chapter XII — Working Conditions ................. 281

Chapter XIII — The Adjustment of Wages ........... 299

Chapter XIV — The Principle of Union Preference ..... 330

Appendix I — Index of Decisions ........................ 415

Appendix II — Wage Tables ........................... 421

CHAPTER I

THE CHICAGO JOINT BOARD

FOR ten years the men's clothing industry of Chicago
has been the seat of one of the most important experiments
in industrial government ever conducted in this country.
Beginning in 1911 with the famous agreement between
Hart, Schaffner and Marx and the clothing workers, and ^
extended in 1919 to cover the whole Chicago market, gov-
ernment in the men's clothing industry has come to embrace
in 1922 a citizenry of from 40,000 to 50,000 men and women.
In their daily lives in the shops, in their search for jobs,
these workers subscribe to rules and regulations, standards \
of workmanship and of conduct, in whose making they and
their representatives have had a voice. From the first both
employers and workmen have realized that there can be no /
industrial peace and no machinery of adjustment and V
stabilization without the cooperation and support of a strong
organization of working men and women. The develop-
ment of the machinery of arbitration, about which so much
has been said, was, consequently, at each step accompanied
by the growth in numbers and in power of the trade union
of clothing workers. Side by side with the extension of
industrial rules, procedure, and practices, the labor organi-
zation in the clothing industry of Chicago has assumed new
functions, and has slowly but progressively met and solved
the problems of its own internal government. The story of
collective bargaining in the clothing industry in Chicago is
no less a story of the development of this internal govern-
ment of the union than of the rise of agreements, trade
boards, and arbitration.

The eight years from 1911 to 1919 in the history of the
Union were the years of the rise of organized labor in Hart,
Schaffner and Marx, the solidification and strengthening of
the union of employees of that firm, and the gradual ex-

2 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

tension of membership to the employees of other manufac-
turers culminating in the market agreement of 1919. During
the first period the membership remained comparatively
small, varying from about 2000 in 1910-1913 to 8000 in
1913-1919. The organization campaigns of the union, the
war, and the economic policies of the federal government,
however, soon had their effects. By June, 1919, member-
ship had risen to 25,000. In the period from June to Decem-
ber, 1919, 15,000 more were added, and from that time to
the present the membership has risen and fallen with the
expansion and contraction of the industry. In December,
1921, the time of the last official count, the number of mem-
bers of the Chicago Joint Board in good standing was
40,024 — practically all of the clothing workers of the city.

This sudden expansion of the organization brought with
it new responsibilities and problems. Sudden accessions in
membership, no matter how large, do not mean unified and
permanent organization. The interest and loyalty of the
newcomers had to be enlisted just as the experience of eight
years had effected the solidarity of the employees of Hart,
Schaffner and Marx. The machinery of union government
had to be extended to meet the needs of thousands of new
people. It became necessary to extend and sharpen the checks
and balances which still seem to be an essential element of all
democratic government; so that the rank and file could en-
trust wide powers to officers who would at the same time
remain responsive to the wishes of their constituents. The
ratification of the 1919 agreements brought under the opera-
tion of the collective agreement employers who had long
been bitterly hostile to trade unions in general and to the
clothing workers' union in particular. With these and other
employers the union had to establish immediate and daily
relations designed to further the prompt and amicable ad-
justment of matters of principle, interpretation and pro-
cedure.

To these difficult tasks the union brought a type of organi-
zation which, in spite of incidental defects common to human
institutions, has gone far to meet adequately the situations

THE CHICAGO JOINT BOARD 3

with which it has been confronted. As a practical matter,
then, the union was faced in 1919 with the task of building /
up an administrative and legislative machinery qualified to
perform the functions that were immediately demanded of
it. These functions are almost as varied as are the functions
of all organized government. A large labor organization
has its officers and official activities. The conduct of business
requires funds; members, therefore, must be taxed and
financial safeguards be devised. Labor organizations rest
on certain social and economic principles. Educational
machinery must be created to stimulate the discussion of
these principles and to teach the members of the union their
significance. The victories of the organization bring to its
members, among other things, the shorter workday and addi-
tional leisure. A truly democratic organization will help
its members to employ their leisure wisely. The organiza-
tion of hundreds of non-union shops and the installation of
continuous machinery of investigation and adjustment
means the creation of a staff of supervisors, negotiators,
and technical experts, willing and competent to perform
these new duties. Finally the obligation conferred upon the
union, through the preferential union shop, to furnish the
employer with workmen necessitates the organization of
employment offices and an understanding of the problems
of employment and unemployment.

So far as general union business is concerned, the smallest
political unit in the Chicago union at the present time is
the local union. Although the Amalgamated Clothing
Wqrkers is an industrial union in the sense that it presents
a uniform policy for all workers regardless of craft, some
of the locals still retain their craft distinctions. In the main,
however, the local unions are divided with reference to the
principal branches of the industry and the nationality and
sex of the workers. Thus, the eleven local unions in Chicago
at present comprise six local unions of coatmakers, and five
locals of cutters and trimmers, vest makers, pants makers,
spongers and examiners, and machinists. The six local
unions of coatmakers consist of five language locals — Bo-

4 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

hemian, Polish, Lithuanian, English, and Italian — and one
local union of women. The membership of the local unions
varied in December, 1921, from 80 for local 272 to 11,510
for local 89. For all practical purposes, the local union is
the place to which the members of the same branch of the
industry or of the same craft may come to discuss their
problems in relation to the policy of the organization, make
suggestions to the Joint Board, discipline members who have
violated the principles of the organization, and in general
act as a center for the consideration of questions that are
of concern to its members.

The effective and important unit of government in the
union is, however, the Joint Board. This body is composed
of 85 delegates elected annually by the local unions, a mana-
ger and financial secretary-treasurer elected by the entire
membership, and two deputies-at-large similarly elected.
Because of the size of the Joint Board, the conduct of cur-
rent, routine business is entrusted to a smaller board of
directors, a finance, committee, and an appeal board which
v hears appeals from the decisions of local unions. In the
Joint Board is centered the collection and disbursal of
money, the initiation and execution of the policy of the union
in the industry, and the supervision over the staff of the
organization.

Probably one of the principal features of the Chicago
Bunion of clothing workers is the centralization of its finances
in the Joint Board. The money collected through dues goes
not to the local union but to the Joint Board, where it is
distributed and is subject to strict and frequent auditing
by both the local and national offices of the union. The
dues of two dollars a month which is required of each member
of the union is at the outset allocated in the following way:

25 cents for building and maintenance

50 cents for the national office

20 cents for the reserve fund

5% cents for the local unions

7% cents for the papers published by the national office

92 cents for the Joint Board.

THE CHICAGO JOINT BOARD 5

The sum received by the Joint Board is used to pay sala-
ries, rent, organization expenses, the expenses of shop meet-
ings, donations, and the loss in wages through union business
of officials who work in the shop.

The relation of the union to the machinery of arbitration
and adjustment of disputes has made necessary the develop-
ment of an additional unit of government and of elaborate
administrative machinery. A large part of the life of the
factory worker is after all spent in the 'shop. There he has
his disputes with the foreman, objects to rules, protests his
new piece rates, feels discrimination in the failure to apply
the equal division of work principle, and participates in a
stoppage, or is affected by one. In any or all cases adjust-
ment must be made promptly and on the spot. Neither the
management nor the worker can afford to wait until the
point at issue has been brought to the local union or to the
Joint Board and there settled. For matters such as these
the employer must have his shop representative and the
union its shop organization. As early as the Hart, Schaffner
and Marx agreement, therefore, shops acted as units and
elected their shop-chairman and assistant shop-chairman to
represent them in matters affecting their interest that daily
arose within the shop. With the signing of the 1919 agree-
ments this system of shop representation was adopted
throughout the market and the shop chairman and his assist-
ant everywhere in the city represents his fellow workers,
meets with the representatives of the firm, adjusts differ-
ences where possible, and refers difficult cases to other offi-
cers of the union.

At the same time, however, the clothing industry in Chi-
cago is in many respects a unit. The union makes agree-
ments not only with individual firms but with the market
as a whole. While permitting local and shop settlements /
of disputed issues, the union must also see to it that working \ /
conditions approach a fair degree of standardization. This
implies a certain amount of uniformity of policy throughout
the city. Through the medium of hundreds of shop chair-
men, scattered through the industry and working under

6 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

varying conditions, it would be difficult, if not impossible,
to attain uniformity and standardization. For this purpose,
therefore, it is necessary to have another set of officers, with
wider fields of jurisdiction, of long experience and a knowl-
edge of the industry and of the policy of the union. It is,
likewise, desirable to give to either employer and employee
who may be dissatisfied with a ruling of the shop chairman,
the right to appeal from his decision, or at least the oppor-
tunity to discuss the matter with another agent of the union.
Frequently also the failure of a shop chairman to effect a
friendly settlement of a stubborn case, without resort to the
impartial machinery, makes necessary the intervention of a
higher union official, who by reason of his authority, skill,
and experience finally reaches an amicable adjustment. To
supplement the work of the shop chairman in this way, the
Joint Board has as part of its regular staff 34 deputies, 32
of whom are elected by various local unions and 2 by the
membership at large. Of the first group, 20 represent the
coat makers; 5 the pants makers; 3 the cutters; 3 the vest
makers ; and 1 the spongers, examiners, and bushelmen. To
each of these deputies a certain branch of the industry or
part of the city is assigned and he there carries on his work-
visits the shops; settles disputes; hears grievances; sees that
union conditions are observed; and acts as intermediary be-
tween the Joint Board and the shop.

With a staff so large and duties so varied, the efficiency
of the organization must depend on the ability of its officers
to coordinate and direct the work of the men and women
engaged in these various activities. In actual practice this
task of direction is in the hands of Levin, the manager of
the Joint Board, and of his associates, Marimpietri, Rosen-
blum, Rissman, and Skala. In the offices of the Joint Board
on Halsted Street, at daily conferences and meetings lasting
long into the night, the day's work is planned, the union
policy is outlined, and men are assigned to their jobs. Every
day but Sunday, from early morning to late night, a con-
stant stream of men and women winds in and out of Levin's
office. Now it is a business agent seeking advice on a dif-

THE CHICAGO JOINT BOARD 7

ficult case or protesting a decision of the Trade Board ; now
it is a delegation from a contract shop complaining that the
contractor has closed his shop and refused to pay the work-
ers their wages. A moment later it is a worker from one
of the shops explaining that he is given less work than his
fellows in the same shop, while he has a wife and children
to support and can earn only a few dollars a week. Another
comes from the employment office across the hall to tell a
tale of discrimination which has kept him unemployed for a
month while the clerk in the employment office has sent hun-
dreds of other members with the same qualifications to jobs
he might have had. With infinite tact and patience Levin
listens to the stories, scribbles notes on his pad, elicits by
shrewd cross-examination the essential facts in the case, and
passes to the next complaint.

In the next office Marimpietri carries on the work as head w
of the price-making department. Long in the industry, a
veteran of all the battles which the clothing workers have
fought in Chicago since 1910, Marimpietri carries at his
finger tips a knowledge of the processes in the industry,
systems of wage payments, the relation between piece rates
and the character of the work that is probably unequalled
anywhere in the industry. To him are brought for adjust-
ment the innumerable disputes over the fixing of new piece
rates. Work changes, new shops are opened, new processes
are introduced, styles change, processes are sub-divided ; each
change, small or large, raises problems of rate adjustment
that require technical and expert knowledge of rate fixing.
In cases that are finally brought to the Trade Board for "•
settlement, frequently the testimony of Marimpietri alone is
sufficient assurance to the chairman of the fairness of rate.

An organization as large as the Chicago Joint Board has
from time to time its special problems which must be met
promptly and effectively. To perform its function in the
system of collective bargaining now prevailing in the in-
dustry, the union must participate with the employers and
the arbitration machinery in the administration of policies
agreed upon in negotiations or ordered by the impartial

8 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

machinery. Thus the arbitration award of April, 1921, con-
tained, among other things, a provision for the establishment
of standards of production for cutters and trimmers. The
administration of this decision depended upon an examina-
tion of present production, a knowledge of differences in
shop conditions, and possession of the confidence of the
workers whose standards were to be fixed. This task was
assigned to Rissman. Formerly a cutter, now deputy-at-
large and assistant manager of the Joint Board, for a long
time the representative of the cutters, Rissman for almost
a year, in cooperation with a representative of the employers
and with Professor Millis, Chairman of the Board of Arbi-
tration, was engaged in this task of setting standards. With
this done he turns to the fixing of trimming standards.

Thus there has in a short period developed this division of
labor, which brings to the work of the union experience and
intelligence. But the activity of the Joint Board does not
stop even here. The staff of the Board is composed, of
course, of diverse individuals, who react variously to the
same situation. The organization must have a policy, how-
ever elastic it may be. On Saturday mornings, for example,
all of the deputies meet in joint conference. Some have en-
countered puzzling cases in the course of their week's work.
They wonder whether their experience is new or old. Is it
wise or not for the organization to adopt one of a number
of alternative policies in the settlement of a particular issue?
What is the temper of the people with regard to a proposed
or adopted policy of the union? Questions such as these
are here reviewed in weekly discussion. Out of it comes
gradually a policy, an understanding of the many-sidedness
of what seems at first a simple point, and the development
of a group spirit.

Frequently, also, an impending crisis or the making effec-
tive a new policy of the union makes it necessary to reach
promptly the whole of the rank and file. When the General
Executive Board of the union decided to raise a reserve fund
throughout the whole of the clothing industry, the first step
was to make known the proposal to the rank and file. A

THE CHICAGO JOINT BOARD 9

similar situation was presented with the decision to raise a
fund for the relief of the victims of the Russian famine.
In Chicago this contact with the membership is made through
shop meetings conducted throughout the city. Shop chair-
men are called into a general meeting, where they have an
opportunity to discuss the proposals. The office of the Joint
Board prepares a schedule of shop meetings. Convenient
halls are rented. Organizers of different nationality, chosen
for their relations with the groups whom they are to address,
are called in from the field and are assigned to their shop
meetings. Then the machinery is put into operation and the
shop meetings are held. At these meetings every possible
type of subject is considered, from the history of the Amal-
gamated to the specific proposal then under discussion. An
idea of the extent of these meetings can be got from the fact
that in the year from February, 1921, to January 14, 1922,
2,104 such meetings were held throughout the city — 886 in
the down-town and outlying districts, 814 in the northwest
side, and 404 in the southwest.

An activity of the union, which has in the past two years
assumed great importance, grows directly out of the terms
of the agreements between the union, Hart, Schaffner and
Marx and the other clothing manufacturers of Chicago.
Under these terms the manufacturers are given the right to
employ non-union workers, provided that no qualified union
workers are then available for the work. The manufac-
turers, therefore, apply to the union for workers before they
attempt to engage any in the open market and the union has
come to conduct a registration office of its unemployed mem-
bers. To this office unemployed come and register; give
what particulars about their occupations are necessary; and
await a call to the next job. In the years of depression like
1921 and 1922, the ante-room in the union headquarters is
almost daily filled with such applicants seeking employment.
From October 5, 1920, to the end of 1921, 44,384 " O. K.'s "
were issued to unemployed members at the three employ-
ment offices now conducted by the union.

Not all of the energies of the union, however, are ex-

10 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

pended in purely industrial and political affairs. Union
business is necessarily absorbing; the problems of the in-
dustry must be attended; but at the same time attention
should not be diverted from the possibilities for cultural
development that inhere in a group continuously engaged in
a common enterprise. These 40,000 to 50,000 members of
the union, of some twenty different nationalities; varied in
outlook and training; some in the country a few months,
others born here ; some members of trade unions for 20 years,
others inducted within the last month or week ; to this motley
group must be given cohesion and unity, outside of the shop
and industry as well as within. It is in general to accom-
plish this end that the union pursues its educational activ-
ities. Education becomes more than mere instruction ; it is the
great social activity of the union. The school room of the
educational department of the Chicago Joint Board is not
a small hall where a few ardent students of Marx straggle in
and out a night or two a week. It is a great, bright enter-
tainment on Friday night; a meeting of more than 5,000
persons at Carmen's Hall, where men bring their families,
stand in line from late afternoon and stay until near mid-
night to hear members of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra,
famous singers, pianists, and violinists, and to listen to talks
by such men as Lincoln Steffens, Raymond Robins, Frank
P. Walsh, Hillman and others. These gigantic meetings,
started for the first time in 1919, have now become an insti-
tution in the lives of the Chicago clothing workers. They
could no more be abolished than could the union itself. Each
year a larger number of these types of meetings are held.
In 1920 the appropriation for them was $5,400 and in 1921
this sum was raised to $12,000.

While these large meetings constitute the center of the
educational activities of the union, classes for the instruction
of small groups have also on occasion been provided. It is
the purpose of the Joint Board to facilitate reading and
study by the building of a library which has already been
established in the central offices of the Board on Halsted
Street. But the educational foundations of the union are

Executive Offices, Chicago Joint Board — Samuel Levin, Manager ; A. D.

THfc LiBBARI
Of M

» tflKHI

THE CHICAGO JOINT BOARD II

still the 'daily contact in the shops, local unions, and at the
Joint Board between the workers, the union and the in-
dustry, and the Friday night meetings. Up to the present
the members of the Chicago Joint Board have learned most
by active participation in the business of running their union
and of conducting their affairs in shop and factory.

The Chicago Joint Board of the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers has not played its part in the clothing industry of
Chicago alone. From the time when, in 1010, it first re-
jected the leaders of the United Garment Workers, through
the fight at Nashville in 1914, until the present, it has been
a powerful force in more ways than one in building a strong
national organization of clothing workers. When the break
came at Nashville, the Chicago delegates, the memory of
1910 still vivid in their minds, joined with the delegates
from New York and elsewhere in the fight to discredit and
reject Rickert and his associates. Later when the Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers was organized, Chicago men
afld women became leaders of the new organization. Prob-
ably never before in the history of a labor organization were
so many leaders drawn from so narrow a circle. Sidney
Hillman, president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers,
was an apprentice cutter in Hart, Schaffner and Marx and
a striker in the strike of 1910. Potofsky, now assistant gen-
eral secretary-treasurer of the national union, Levin,
Marimpietri, Rosenblum, Skala, Rissman, members of the
General Executive Board of the national union, are all
from Chicago and helped in the rise of both the Chicago
Joint Board and of the national organization.

This contribution of leadership did not end the service
of the Chicago union. From the first the spirit of Chicago
has been of incalculable service when the fight was on in
other centers and the outlook seemed dark. They, them-
selves, worn by long struggles with the clothing manufac-
turers, yet never forgot the importance of an active national
organization. When the time came, and the national union
was being attacked, Chicago went a long way toward sup-

12 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

plying the sinews of war. In the New York lockout of
1918-1919, the Chicago members took the back pay granted
them in Hart, Schaffner and Marx, to the amount of
$60,000 and sent it to their fellows in New York who were
not working. Again in the great New York fight of 1920-
1921, when the cost of conducting strikes had mounted and
the union was hard pressed in Baltimore and Boston as
well, Chicago, in the midst of a period of widespread unem-
ployment, raised $600,000 and sent the money to the aid
of New York. Toward peaceful enterprises the Chicago
Joint Board has been equally generous. Only recently, a
short period after the New York assessment, it raised and
contributed $62,000 to the relief of the Russian famine
victims.

From Chicago, also, go the representatives of the national
office to organize the clothing workers in the surrounding
cities. Organization activities in Indianapolis, Cincinnati,
Louisville, St. Paul, Milwaukee, are all carried on from
Chicago as a center. Frank Rosenblum, a general organizer
of the national office, an active member of the Chicago union
since before the strike of 1910, skilled in the art of organiza-
tion, directs from Chicago this work of organization in the
outlying districts. To his aid he enlists such men and
women as Isowitz, Kroll, Skala, Rissman, Krzycki, Johann-
sen, Grandinetti, Nettie Richardson, seasoned organizers,
trained in the Chicago struggles, to carry the spirit and
achievements of Chicago to men and women who are still
battling for emancipation.

In common with the policy of the national organization,
the Chicago Joint Board has from the first established
friendly connections with the rest of the American labor
movement. Although an independent union, in that it is
not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, it
has not hesitated to do all in its power to cement its relations
with other labor organizations. In the city of Chicago and
in the State of Illinois it has both received and given sup-
port from 1910 on. Between such men as Fitzpatrick and
Nockels and the Chicago union there has always existed

13

mutual sympathy and cooperation. The story of the great
Chicago clothing strikes cannot be written without tribute
to the services of these men in the cause of the strikers. As
the Chicago Joint Board itself grew in power and resources
it was able to lend aid to those who needed it. To the steel
strikers of 1919 it gave $72,000. But its real contribution
to the general labor movement lies deeper. The Chicago
Joint Board for ten years has been a vast, experimental
laboratory in American trade unionism. In it experiments
in internal government and in industrial relations have been
prosecuted and have yielded illuminating results. No
greater service can be asked of a pioneer organization than
that it has blazed a trail upon which others may follow.

This history of the organization of Chicago clothing
workers leaves it not at the end but at the beginning of its
career. Much has been accomplished in the short space of
ten years. But always the clothing workers look for new
fields to conquer and for new burdens to assume. Plans
for the construction of a new home on the site shown as the
frontispiece to this volume and of a building on the north-
west side are now under way. Their completion makes
possible new undertakings which the inadequacy of the
present offices of the union has forced to be postponed.
Within only the past few months the preliminary steps were
taken for the organization of a cooperative bank financed
and organized by the members of the union. The present
crisis of unemployment has led to the establishment of a loan
fund for the support of the indigent unemployed. The
educational activities of the union are expanding. New
problems of the industry will arise and old ones will assume
a new and unfamiliar form. May the future of this organiza-
tion retain the vigor and insight that have characterized its
past.

PART I
THE GROWTH OF ORGANIZATION

CHAPTER II
THE STRIKE OF 1910

THE Chicago Garment Strike of 1910 was the first great
landmark in the long struggle of the clothing workers for
emancipation. Because it was felt to be the beginning of a
great movement, and because of the importance of the issues
and the proportions that the strike reached, there has col-
lected about the story of this fight a mass of memories and
traditions, and about the figures of those who were in the
thick of it and who devoted themselves heart and soul to the
cause of the workers, an almost historical glamor. It was
a struggle to excite the keenest interest not only of the world
of labor, but of all public-minded citizens. No one could
be non-partisan in such a fight, and no one was.

The feature of the strike was the entirely unorganized con-
dition of the strikers and the spontaneity and determination
of their protest in spite of that fact. It has been described
by Mr. Dvorak, the author of the famous strike articles in
the Chicago Daily Socialist, as a " simultaneous upheaval*
of over forty-one thousand garment workers, brought on by
sixteen girls, against petty persecution, low wages, abuse
and long hours ; an upheaval unorganized at the start, which
later took on the form of a fight for recognition of the
union." The strike did not grow out of a premediated
attempt to organize the workers — it rose directly from the
industrial conditions of the workers in Chicago. " There
really were no definite demands ; the demands were that con-
ditions must be changed; nobody knew exactly what they
wanted; they wanted something better, of course, or_j
different."

These conditions were the inevitable result of the nature
and organization of the industry itself, coupled with the un-

18 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

organized and defenceless position of the workers. A glance
at the history of the competitive struggle between the Chi-
cago Wholesale Clothiers' Association (an organization of
big concerns formed in defence against the new small tailor
shops) and the one big firm that refused to enter the Asso-
ciation— Hart, Schaffner and Marx — is enough to show how
the independent tailors, and later the contractors, were all
[caught in the same system. Gradually, under the competition
of more powerful firms the smaller inside shops were driven
out of independent business. Many of them turned their
inside shops into contract shops and began to work for these
big firms on a contract basis. The contractors thus found
themselves caught between the upper and nether millstones
of the association firms and their rival, Hart, Schaffner and
Marx. They became mere pawns in the fight for supremacy.
The first important move in this struggle came in response
to a tactical increase in contractors' prices granted by the
association houses, when Hart, Schaffner and Marx sud-
denly withdrew all work from -their "contract shops and
opened in their place inside shops employing over eight
thousand tailors. This step was the signal for a drive on
the part of both competitors to reduce their labor costs. The
contract system lent itself easily to reductions in rates, for
the contractors would pass the price reductions demanded
by the manufacturers on to the workers by lowering their
rates. At the same time Hart, Schaffner and Marx would
try to preserve its competitive position by cutting the wages
of its workers. This whole process was, also, made easy by
the prevalence of piece work in an unorganized market.
Without protection of their piece rates, the workers would
be speeded up and thenr when their earnings increased, would
have their piece rates cut. A seasonal industry, unorganized
workers, contractors, produced their natural and inevitable
Lcpnsequences — low earnings, excessive hours, and a helpless-
ness, which could be relieved only by a powerful and con-
tinuous organization of those who worked in the industry.

The helplessness of the workers not only made it impos-
sible for them to resist these conditions but was itself aggra-

THE STRIKE OF 1910 19

vated and intensified by them, so that the workers were caught
in a vicious circle. In the first place, the garment
were almost without exception recently arrived immigrants,
unable to speak English, and ignorant of customs and con-
ditions of other American industries. The racial and linguistic
differences among the workers themselves made common
understanding and action extremely difficult. An article
describing the beginning of the strike in the official organ
of the Women's Trade Union League, says that the re-
bellious groups were not even known to each other. ' They
poured out of the shops, threw down their needles, and in
nine different languages demanded a better condition of af-
fairs in the industry of garment making in Chicago." That
the ignorance of language and customs and the " green-
ness " of the immigrant workers were taken advantage of, is
proved again and again by stories that were told in the course
of the investigation of the strike. The following story was
told by a young Italian girl :

" There were about ten greenhorns who could not talk Eng-
lish at all. I can't speak English very good, but I speak more
than what they could. So in the evening I went to the boss and
I said: ' Do you like my work? ' He said, * Yes, I like your
work very well.' I said : ' How much are you going to pay
me? ' He said * What can you do? ' « Well,' I said, ' I told
you, basting, finisher, buttons, all kinds of work.' So he said,

* Well I would like to have you be the forelady to teach these
greenhorns how to work because these are greenhorns and they
can't work very well. You just be forelady and tell them to
work more and make me good work.' So I said ' Well, all right,
but don't you like the work they do? ' He said, ' No, they
can't work for me now but you must try and learn them.' So
I said to him * If you think they can't do the work I have some
good, experienced girls that could do the work right, and I will
bring them over in the morning.' So he laughed — he stopped
and laughed. He said, * Experienced girls? Not in my shop ! '

* Why not? ' He said, * I want no experienced girls. They
know the pay to get. I got to pay them good wages and they
make me less work, but these greenhorns, Italian people, Jewish
people, all nationalities, they cannot speak English and they
don't know where to go and they just come from the old coun-
try, and I let them work hard, like the devil, and those I get for
less wages."

20 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

Most of the workers had learned their trade in their own
countries, but that served only to make them the more de-
pendent on the only trade in which they were skilled. At the
same time the seasonal nature of the industry and the fact
/* that the industry was always over-supplied with labor kept
the workers in constant fear of losing their jobs, and this fear
made them powerless to complain or resist. The answer was
always the same: " If you don't like it, you can leave."
' We don't need you." ' There are plenty to take your
place." One of the girls told of her own experience, which
was typical of many others. She had protested against a
further wage cut in a shop of which she was forelady. The
boss said, " If they cannot make it, here is the window and
here is the door. If they don't want to go from the window
they can go from the door, and if they don't want to go
from the door, they can go from the window. * * * I have
lots of greenhorns. I got to make my own living."

It is all the more astonishing, in view of the workers' lack
of organization and their fear of losing their jobs, that the
strike grew to be more serious than any of the frequent
sporadic flare-ups that had been so prevalent in the industry,
and thus far so futile. It would have to be a serious and
almost unbearable accumulation of grievances that would
induce the workers to run that risk sooner than continue un-
der the old sweat-shop conditions. A Grievance Committee
appointed by the Strike Committee of the Women's Trade
Union League, after the strike began, published a report
of its findings and accounts of grievances told by girl
strikers. These stories and the evidence submitted later to
the Illinois State Senate Investigation Committee give some
idea of how serious these grievances were.
' By means of the piece work system and reduction of rates,
the workers were driven to an ever-increasing speed, that was
injurious to their health not only on its own account, but also
because the long hours and the ill-ventilated and ill-lighted
jjhops added to the nervous strain of speeding. This state-
ment by Hillman is typical:

Sidney Hillman, General President

THE STRIKE OF 1910 21

" In our place (Sears, Roebuck) we were working about seven
thousand girls — in our place ten hours a day, and before the ten
hour law was passed they used to work three nights a week,
getting for remuneration a supper that was paid for by the
Company in their own restaurant."

The fastest workers would be made " pacemakers " and I
their rates would be increased until they had reached the
highest possible production. This production would then
be required of all the workers and the rates gradually re-
duced. Changes in operations or the combination of what
had been two or more operations into one, or other changes
that made the work more difficult would be required without
any compensating changes being made in the piece rates, so
that the actual earnings of the workers were decreased. An-
nie Schapiro gives the following testimony for her own shop :

" When they (the workers) were first cut a quarter of a cent
in shop 5, the firm promised the workers they would not have to
sew the waist bands in the pants. But later the boss said
* Boys, I want you to sew the bands for the same money.' We i
kept quiet because we could not help it." T*

The rates to begin with were in most cases so low as to
make it impossible for the workers to earn a living without
taking work home. Needle workers would take packages
of needles home with them to thread at night, so as to be able
to get more work done in the shops. Women earning from
three dollars to six dollars a week on piece work rates would
take work away with them to do at night, despite the long
working day. One story told to the Grievance Committee
shows that the women in one shop had to finish ten coats a
day, and each coat required at least an hour and a half, even
for an experienced worker. The rates for these were tfiir-^
teen cents a coat, which meant that if they worked ten hours
steadily, at the greatest possible speed, they could make
eighty-five cents a day. Later the boss of this shop was cut
by the contractor he was working for and he told the girl
that the women in her shop have to do the work for twelve
cents a coat. Her own story, which follows, shows how thej
workers were finally goaded into striking:

22 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

" I said, ' I am not going to tell those people twelve cents a
coat.' He said, ' You got to tell them.' I said, ' No, sir, you
tell them yourself. I am just ashamed to tell them * .... He
said, ' You are foreludy, you are supposed to do the speaking.'
I said, ' Well, if I am supposed to do the speaking, then I will
not be the forelady, I want to be a working girl, the same as
the others, and then I don't speak."

" I knew they were striking in all the shops, so I told all our
girls, I said, ' The first whistle we hear in the window, that means
for us to strike.' So one day, it was dinner time, quarter after
twelve and we hear a big noise under the window and there was
about two hundred persons were all whistling for us to come
down and strike, so I was the first one to go out and get the
other girls to come after me."

Other workers told similar stories:

" We started to work at 7.30 and worked until 6 with three-
quarters of an hour for lunch. Our wages were seven cents a
pair of pants or one dollar for fourteen pairs and for that we
made four pockets and one watch pocket. But they were
always changing the style of stitching, and till we got the
swing of the new style, we would lose time and money and we
felt sore about it. Some of the new styles took more time,
anyway. One day the foreman told us the wages were cut to
six cents a pair of pants and the new style had two watch
pockets and we didn't stand for that, so we got up and left after
Mr. Wolf told us if we didn't like the prices, we could quit.

" That was way back in September. We walked over to
Hart, Schaffner and Marx to see if we could get work there, and
we found they had a strike. We knew nothing of it, but of
course we wouldn't scab. After a week or so, we went back
to the old shop and found others in our place. Then the great
strike came — not just the separate little strikes, but one whole
strike. When the foreman heard us all talking about it, he
said, ' Girls, you can have your pockets and your cent again if
you'll stay.' But just then there was a big noise outside and
we all rushed to the windows and there we saw the police beating
the strikers on our account, and when we saw that we went out."

Another worker testified that she worked in one shop for
three years at four dollars, five dollars, and later seven dol-
lars a week. Later when she was put on piece work, she
could earn more but it was harder work and the highest
earnings she ever made were twelve dollars.

THE STRIKE OF 1910 23

But the reductions in rates and wages were not the only
grievances of the workers. Again and again there are com- *
plaints about the abuse of the absolute and arbitrary power
vested in the foreman or even the assistant foreman. It was —
this power as much if not more than the seasonal periods of
unemployment that instilled in the workers the constant fear,
of being fired, and kept them from making complaints.

" I especially recall the feeling of fear besides the wages,"
testified Hillman before the Federal Industrial Relations Com-
mission in 1914, " I believe I started in with $7 a week, and dur-
ing 3 years I worked up to $11 or $12 ; but what I consider more
important is this, that is the constant fear of the employees of
being discharged without cause at all. There really was no cause
at all sometimes. The floor boss, as we called him, did not like a
particular girl or man, and out they went. I remember especial-
ly the panic of 1907 when the employees were in constant fear of
* Who will be thrown out?' I remember we tried, all of us, to get
into the good graces of the floor boss. When I worked for Hart,
Schaffner and Marx I worked two months without pay, as it was *
understood that I had savings enough to live if I did not get any
other remuneration. I believe for about a couple of months I
worked for $6 or $7 a week. The conditions prevailing were
about the same everywhere, the man directly in charge was the
boss and everything else. I remember when I made the first
complaint I packed up my tools and I went out."

One girl testified that she began work at the age of 12.
She was small enough to be covered by the boss' coajf when
the factory inspector came around! " One day the foreman
came to me and told me I could be assistant foreman and
that he would give me $8 a week to start and then make it
$10. But then suddenly all the men seemed to be getting
ugly to me, and I didn't know why, but I know now. The
assistant foreman who was there before me was a man and
he got $22, and then you see they thought I knew just about
as much, and they offered me the job and they only gave me
$10, and I didn't know I was working for less than the man;
so all the other men hated me and tried to take it out on me.
Afterwards I learned that the manager didn't know about it
either, but that the foreman was just doing this on his own
account."

24 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

If a worker was too good to lose, but yet showed a tendency
to rebellion and toward arousing the discontent of the others,
he or she would generally be made foreman or forelady.
Bonuses would be given to foremen or foreladies for increas-
ing the productivity of their shop, while if they did not get
better results they would lose their jobs. Thus the foremen
and assistant foremen were given every incentive, including
that of fear, toward driving the workers, though no changes
were made in the earnings of the workers themselves for in-
creased production. This system naturally led to all kinds
of abuse and petty tyranny on the part of the foremen and

^foreladies, from whose actions there was no appeal. In one
shop, for example, the foreman had the water turned off be-
fore and after the dinner hour, so that the workers could
have no reason to take off time from their work. Many other
disputes arose in connection with the saving of time. After
the passage of the 10-hour law, for instance, foremen in
several shops managed to evade the law by requiring the
workers to work before and after punching the time clock,
and the workers did not dare complain.

I The obnoxious system of fines was another weapon in the
hands of the foremen, and one of the most irritating. In
many instances failure to punch the time clock three times
daily was fined, and in some shops punching it one minute
late was fined the equivalent of 15 minutes of working time.
Excessive fines were imposed for the slightest errors in
work, out of all proportion to the amount of loss incurred
by the employer. If any garment was even slightly dam-
aged, the worker had to pay the full price of the garment,

[and he might be compelled to purchase it at the retail price.
In one instance, a tailor earning $14 a week slightly damaged
three pairs of pants and was charged $12 by the company.
His fellow-workers being unable to complain raffled off the
three pairs of pants to compensate him for the loss. The Sen-
ate Investigation Committee revealed similar conditions in
other shops, for example:

" Senator McKenzie : In taking these goods, do they permit
the employe to take them at cost?

THE STRIKE OF 1910 25

" Witness : No Sir, they charge their regular wholesale price
with their profits attached to it.

** Senator McKenzie : They make him pay the profits you
say?

" Witness : Yes, sir.

" Senator McKenzie : They have made a sale in other words ? .

" Witness : Yes, Sir, on a damaged piece of goods."

Many workers complained that they were forced to pay
for materials that they used up or lost at retail rates. " A fine
of 60 cents was imposed for a lost spool whether empty or
full, and on entering, shop workers have been charged 25
cents for oil cans procurable wholesale at 5 cents."

The effect of all these unremedied grievances, together
with the lack of any possible means for adjusting them,
engendered in the workers a state of chronic unrest and dis-
content, which broke out in numerous small but bitter strikes.
Mr. Joseph Schaffner of Hart, Schaffner and Marx de-
scribed the situation to the Industrial Relations Commission
as follows:

" Careful study of the situation has led me to the belief that I
the fundamental cause of the strike was that the workers had
no satisfactory channel through which minor grievances, exac-
tions and petty tyrannies of underbosses * * * could be
taken up and amicably adjusted. Taken separately, these_J
grievances appear to have been of a minor character. They
were, however, allowed to accumulate from month to month and
from year to year. * -* * The result was that there steadily
grew up in, the minds of many a feeling of distrust and enmity
towards their immediate superiors in position, because they felt
that justice was being denied them. If they had had the
temerity to complain against a boss, they incurred his displea-
sure, and his word was taken in preference to theirs. In some
instances they lost their jobs, and where this was not the case
they seldom received any satisfaction.

" Shortly before the strike I was so badly informed of the con- '
ditions that I called the attention of a friend to the satisfactory
state of the employees. It was only a few days before the great
strike of the Garment Workers broke out. When I found out
later of the conditions that had prevailed, I concluded that thej
strike should have occurred much sooner."

26 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

The resentment of the workers had, in fact, piled up
through years of injustices until almost anything would have
served to start the blaze. The first spark was struck on

* September 22 in Shop No. 5, a pants shop of Hart, Schaffner
and Marx, when several girls walked out of the shop rather

* than accept a cut of one-quarter cent in rates. Annie
Schapiro, one of the first to go out, gives the following ac-
count of what happened :

" After they had cut the rates for seaming pants ^4^, they
gave it back again, then cut again, and we went out. There
was a man (Morris) who said ' No, I will not work for 3%^.'
We were told to come back Friday at twelve. On Friday there
was the whole bunch there * * * and we did not know any-
thing about it, and he (Morris) would not leave us go upstairs
and stopped us in the office. He said ' What are you going to
work for? That is only 3%^ now. I wouldn't work for that
* * *. I said I could work for 3%.^.

" I went down on the Monday the next week to see about the
seamers and they did not come back to work. And one or more
fellows went down-town, and the rest of them left."

The workers then sent a committee to Hart, Schaffner and
Marx, urging them to restore the quarter-cent cut, but the
firm refused because they said other workers were quitting
and refusing to do the work anyway.

" That was the people in the other departments, and they
saw there was trouble in the shops * * * so at shops 14 and
15, the rest of the seamers did not want to do our work, and
so it was on Wednesday they picked up their tools that they
should work with, and they did not want to do that work; the
people went on strike. * * * The foreman threw Morris
out, and then all the people refused to work."

Contrary to all precedent, the walk-out in Shop 5 pro-
voked immediate and enthusiastic response in other shops. It
seemed as if the workers had just been waiting for something
or someone to give the final push. The news spread through
the clothing shops of Chicago with amazing rapidity. By
the next day almost a thousand men and women had left the
shops and long before three weeks were over, more than
40,000 were out, and the whole city was affected. Nothing

THE STRIKE OF 1910 27

like it had ever been known before in the history of the cloth-
ing workers.

At the very beginning of the strike a group of workers
went to the office of Robert Noren, President of District
Council No. 6 of the United Garment Workers and appealed
for help and support in the strike. Noren wired to President
Rickert for instructions, and was authorized by him to call a
strike of the garment workers. Here if ever was a chance
to organize the Chicago clothing workers on a scale never
before dreamed of, but at the crucial moment, the officers of
the United Garment Workers for some reason failed to take
advantage of the opportunity. Even after the strike was
well under way, in spite of the growing and insistent demand
for a general strike in all the clothing shops, and in spite of
the proof that " union label " shops were doing work for
strike-bound houses, the United Garment Workers hesitated
to call a general strike until more than 18,000 were already
out.

It was about this time that the Chicago Daily Socialist
first came to the aid of the strikers. On October 7th a
Special Strike Edition of the Daily Socialist was published,
and thereafter a series of articles appeared, giving a full and
detailed history of the progress of the strike. Mr. Robert
Dvorak, the author of these articles, practically forced the
hand of the United Garment Workers District Council No.
6 by threatening to publish a call for a general strike with-
out waiting longer unless the union did it. But the United
Garment Workers did call the strike, and within one week
the number of workers out on strike had grown to 45,000.
' This great exodus was brought on because 50,000 copies of
the Daily Socialist containing the call were distributed by
the strikers throughout the city and in front of the unfair
concerns' doors."

The strike grew so fast that District Council No. 6 was
unable to handle it, and in a few weeks was asking for speak-
ers to address meetings and for other assistance from the
Chicago Women's Trade Union League, of which Mrs. Ray-

28 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

mond Robins was then President. On October 20 the
League sent the following offer to District Council No. 6:

" Knowing that your organization is at present involved in
an extensive strike against the Hart, Schaffner and Marx shops
and believing that in the consequent great pressure of work
you may not have realized in what ways the Women's Trade
Union League may be of use to you, our Executive Board last
night voted to offer you our services.

" When our local leagues have definite relationship with a
strike, we ask that in accepting our assistance the union permit
two representatives of the League to attend all meetings of the
strike committee and to authorize such representation through
a resolution passed by the executive committee of the union.

" The reason for this provision is to ensure our keeping in
touch with the union's plans of work and with fresh develop-
ments in the situation as these arise, this being the only way
in which we can intelligently cooperate."

On October 28th the offer was formally accepted by Presi-
dent Noren, with the assurance that District Council No. 6
would be glad to have representatives from the League act
with the Strike Committee. A Strike Committee was im-
mediately organized by the League and began to work
through the following sub-committees: Strike fund com-
mittee, of which Mrs. Robins was Chairman; Picket Com-
mittee, of which Miss Steghagen was Chairman, and Miss
Ellen Gates Starr a member; Grievance Committee, under
the Chairmanship of Miss Katherine Coman, an economist,
and committees on Co-operation, Organization, Publicity,
Speakers, Meetings, Relief, Rent, etc. The list of com-
mittee workers included some of the most prominent citizens
of Chicago. Men and women of the highest standing and
reputation in their own fields, representing all occupations
and classes, from politics to social service, were drawn into
the fight, and in various ways not only expressed their
opinions on the issues in favor of the strikers, but worked
for them and got others to work for them as well.

On November 2nd the Grievance Committee began activ-
ities by holding a breakfast-meeting at King's Restaurant,
where 12 girl strikers told their stories of grievances to the

THE STRIKE OF 1910 29

committee. These stories were later published in a report
of the Committee, and many of them have already been
referred to in describing the conditions that led to the strike.
The report was published with an introduction by Professor
Coman, summarizing the main grievances, and in this con-
cise form it became very effective as publicity material.

A meeting was called at Hull House by Mrs. Robins,
the result of which was the organization of the " Citizens'
Committee." This committee published a report on Novem-
ber 5, prepared by Professor Mead, Miss Breckinridge and
Miss Nicholes, and based on testimony of employes of 17
firms and from 31 Hart, Schaffner and Marx shops. The
opinion and recommendations of the committee were as
follows :

" In the opinion of this committee, the natural method of
removing the causes of irritation in the shops and of making a
more healthful social life there possible, is some form of shop
organization among the workers in the shop. The industry '
is so very complicated, the labor so highly subdivided, the de-
pendence, as yet. of the operatives upon the foremen is so great,
that it seems next to impossible to bring about normal condi-
tions, unless the operatives themselves are able to express their
own views and their own complaints through committees and
this without fear of loss of position or the enmity of the fore-
man * * * Some form of representation of the operatives^J
which will mediate between the worker and the employer, seems
to be necessary in order that the point of view and the condi-
tions of the operatives may be recognized in the matter of shop
discipline, and especially in order that minute grievances may\
find a natural expression instead of being piled up to give rise
to such widespread industrial and social disturbances as we havej
witnessed during the last ten days."

In the meantime meetings were being organized and
speakers secured with the help of the Strike Committee.
Mrs. Raymond Robins, who was at that time directing most
of the relief work, was herself addressing strike meetings
and securing speakers. Mrs. Ella Stewart of the National
American Suffrage Association, Mrs. A. W. Thompson,
Miss Phelps and many others, as well as women prominent

30 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

in the English labor movement, such as Miss Margaret
Bondfield, Miss Marion Ward, Miss Agnes Murphy, and
Mrs. Philip Snowden, were a few of those who showed what
they thought of the strike by going to the strikers' halls day
after day to address mass meetings. Mr. Dvorak writes
that: "Eighteen of the largest halls in Chicago were packed
daily — some even twice daily — and speakers in every
language counselled and spurred the thousands to action."

But perhaps the most important service rendered by these
committees in the early days of the strike was that of the
Picket Committee, whose work not only in aiding the pickets
but in giving publicity to the outrageous conduct of the
police and strike-breakers did as much as anything during
the first few weeks toward swinging the weight of public
opinion to the side of the strikers. The campaign of violence
and brutality that the Chicago police entered upon from the
very beginning was consistent with their attitude in all the
later strikes of the Chicago clothing workers. It took the
form not only of injustice and violence on their own part,
but of winking at such illegal acts as the carrying of con-
cealed weapons and unprovoked assaults by hired guards
and strike-breakers or private detectives. Miss Ellen Gates
Starr and witnesses before the Senate Committee testified
that the activities of police and of private detectives hired
to " protect " strike-breakers to and from buildings were
actually influential in spreading the strike. For example,
one statement was: " There were pickets and detectives out-
side of the building that we saw when going to work. I
never worked under police protection before and it worried
me, and I couldn't work any more."

All possible efforts were made to maintain peace and
order in the picket lines, and there was surprisingly little
violence on the part of the strikers in view of the provoca-
tion. In an effort to eliminate violence as much as pQssible,
the following picket rules were printed and distributed
among the strikers :

THE STRIKE OF 1910 31

RULES FOR PICKETS.

Don't walk in groups of more than two or three.

Don't stand in front of the shop : walk up and down the block.

Don't stop the person you want to talk to : walk alongside of
him.

Don't get excited and shout when you are talking.

Don't put your hand on the person you are talking to.

Don't touch his sleeve or button : This may be construed as
a technical assault.

Don't call anyone " scab " or use abusive language of any
kind.

Plead, persuade, appeal, but do not threaten.

If a policeman arrests you and you are sure you have com-
mitted no offense, take his number and give it to your Union
Officer.

In spite of these precautions the attacks continued, and
" every day strikers reported to headquarters with tales of
how they had been shot at and attacked by armed strike-
breakers. Protests galore were made to Leroy Steward,
Chief of Police, but he only shook his head sagely, and said :
' Wait until the strike is over! '

Miss Steghagen, Miss Ellen Gates Starr and Miss Frank-
lin, all members of the Picket Committee, testified to the
rough handling of pickets, of which they were eye-witnesses.
Miss Starr sent the following account of one case to the
daily papers:

" I went first to a dingy hall, ill ventilated and crowded, to
meet the pickets and plan our orderly and law-abiding course,
and then to the factory of Price at Franklin and Van Buren
Streets.

" About the door stood twenty-one or twenty-two men. It
must be conceded that they * Obstructed the street ' more than
a group of three rather small women, who are never allowed to
stand for an instant, but are ordered, usually roughly, to * move
on ' and ' go about their business.' These men, it is true, were
about their business of holding; the street for Price & Co. I
addressed myself civilly to a police officer and asked him why
these twenty-two men were allowed to stand on the pavement
and I was not. He answered (somewhat shamefacedly; I think
that particular officer did not like his job), that they were all
sworn officers, and added, * Don't ask me questions, lady.'

32 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

* You have your orders, I suppose? ' * Yes, I have.' On which
I tendered him my sympathy and proceeded to interrogate the
so-called * officers.'

" After a time a superior officer arrived who was insolent and
brutal and absolutely outside his rights, as I was entirely within
mine. I was then alone having separated myself from the girls,
and was simply walking back and forth in front of the factory.
After roughly asking me, ' Who are you ? ' and ' What are you
doing here ' and hearing that I was simply a citizen of the
United States and a settlement worker here in the interest of
justice and fair play, he informed me that if I passed by once
more I would be sent to the station. I then withdrew to the
opposite side of the street and watched matters from there.

" The modus operandi was to bundle the strikebreakers out,
surrounded by the hired * detectives,' directly to the cars which
halted precisely in front of the door so that no pickets should
be allowed to speak to them."

In November a committee was appointed to inquire
whether manufacturers could put up cots in factories for
scabs. It was in violation of health and building ordinances,
but the law had been cleverly evaded and the committee
could do nothing.

Every day was marked by arrests and assaults, and gen-
erally at least one riot in some part of the city. Finally the
climax was reached in December when two pickets were shot
and killed by strike-breakers. On December 3, Charles
Lazinskas was attacked and shot in front of the Royal
Tailors' establishment, and on December 15, Frank Nag-
reckis was shot while picketing. The death of Lazinskas
came at a crucial moment for the strikers, while an agree-
ment was being negotiated in the office of the Mayor of
Chicago. The effect of his death and funeral on the attitude
of the workers toward the agreement is described in an
article by Mr. Dvorak:

" There never was a funeral in Chicago such as was held in
the case of the murdered garment-striker. Thousands of men,
women and girls marched. On their coat lapels each striker
had a piece of crepe pinned down with the union botton of the
garment workers. * * * At Hod Carriers Hall, after the
funeral they condemned the pending agreement in the most
bitter terms."

Charles Lazinskas

Frank Nagreckis

Strikers Killed in 1910 Strike

THfe

OF THt

or HUMS

THE STRIKE OF 1910 33

This incident and a great parade and demonstration of the
strikers in protest against the brutality of the police pro-
duced a marked effect on public opinion, and thereafter
there was considerably less violence.

Early in November important changes were made in the
organization and control of the strike work, by the creation
of what was called the Joint Strike Conference Board. The!
change was made necessary by reason of the loss of faith
of the workers in their own leaders among the United Gar-
ment Workers. Just as the strike appeared to be progress-
ing with enthusiasm and a fair chance of success, Mr. Rick-
ert, President of the United Garment Workers, signed the
following agreement with the firm of Hart, Schaffner and
Marx, dated November 5, and submitted it to the strikers^
for their vote:

" AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA AND
THE FIRM OF HART, SCHAFFNER AND MARX.

"The International President of the United Garment Workers
of America agrees to recommend the return of all former em-
ployees of Hart, Schaffner and Marx upon the understanding
between himself and the heads of the firm that one person shall
be selected by the firm and one by the United Garment Workers
of America, these two to select a third, and these three to take
up the alleged grievances of the former employees of the firm
and to devise methods, both as to redress and the avoidance of
like difficulties in the future.

" This instrument shall not be considered as a recognition of
the 'union, nor shall the question of union or open shop organi-J
zation be submitted to or passed upon by the committee ap-
pointed herein; nor shall the question of open shop be con-
sidered as a grievance on the part of the former employees of
Hart, Schaffner and Marx."

As Rickert himself records in his report to the United
Garment Workers' Convention in 1912: "To my surprise
the people voted it down — they gave it practically little or
no consideration."

How the strikers felt about the agreement was only too
evident in the promptness and vehemence with which they

34 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

rejected it, and Rickert was forced to drop the plan and
turn his attention seriously to the important work of
organization. But he had lost the confidence of his people.
The strikers, their faith not only in Rickert, but in many of
their other leaders having been shaken, appealed for help to
the Chicago Federation of Labor. Mr. John Fitzpatrick,
President of the Chicago Federation of Labor, agreed to
help them and from that time on devoted his entire time to
(their cause. The result of the strikers' appeal was the
organization of the new Joint Strike Conference Board.
The Board consisted of two representatives each from the.
United Garment Workers of America, District Council
No. 6, Strike Committee of Special Order Garment Work-
ers, Strike Committee of. Ready Made Garment Workers,
Chicago Federation of Labor, and the Women's Trade
Union League. This Board took over all work that had
formerly been handled by independent committees from
V^ach of the organizations represented.

The problem of strike benefits and the need for organized
relief was brought home to the strikers and the Committee
by an incident that occurred on the llth of November. Some-
thing like ten thousand people came to the headquarters at
275 La Salle Street. The crowd, many thousands of men,
women and children, were denied admittance to the larger
wheat pit on the ground floor which it was understood had
been reserved for their use. They were not permitted to
stay because the fire department feared a disaster. The
great crowd gathered in the street in front of the building.
All had relief orders for various amounts but there was no
money in the treasury. The indignation and excitement
cannot be described. Finally, John Fitzpatrick addressed
the crowd from the fire-escape, explaining that they would
be attended to in their various halls. The strikers repaired
to the halls. Some had in despair and anger destroyed their
vouchers. Some received their strike pay. It was a heart-
rending sight as from early morning till late afternoon they
waited in the halls, the corridors and outside in the streets.
Finally, Mr. Fitzpatrick addressed them, explaining that

John Fitzpatrick

Mrs. Raymond Robins

Jane Addams

Ellen Gates Starr

Edward N. Nockles

THE STRIKE OF 1910 35

they would be attended to in their various halls." Miss
Nestor of the Relief Committee went around with the Pay-
ing Committee from hall to hall redeeming the vouchers.

It was evident that some organized method of relief must
be undertaken, and the Strike Conference decided on a plan.
All the vouchers that were out were to be redeemed but no
more were to be issued. At the suggestion of Mr. Fitzpat-
rick, the Committee decided to establish commissary stores
along the lines successfully followed by the United Mine
Workers and the Building Trades Council. In the operation
of these commissaries, Mr. James Mullenbach was called
into consultation, and with his help and that of his assist-
ants the Board opened four commissary stores, one on
Lincoln Street, one on Blue Island Avenue, one on Johnson
Street and the fourth at West Fourteenth Place. Strike
benefits were given not in cash but in fixed rations, varying
with the size of the family. Tickets were issued by Mr.
Fitzpatrick to the various shop chairmen who distributed
them to the strikers, each ticket being issued on a monthly
basis and entitling the holder to call for supplies weekly.
Signatures of the shop chairmen were checked up on each
ticket by the superintendent in the stores. The amount and
kind of relief afforded by these tickets can be seen from the
following list of rations allowed a family of five for one
week:

Bread, eighteen loaves; sugar, five pounds; oatmeal, two
large packages; coffee, one pound; beans, five pounds; ham,
ten pounds.

The opening of commissary stores was only one form of
relief work undertaken by the Strike Conference Board.
Lunch rooms for pickets were maintained at convenient lo-
cations. A separate committee handled the problem of rent
relief and members of the committee went around personally
interviewing the landlords. The gas company was found to
be sympathetic and in no case was gas turned off after the
situation had been explained by a member of the committee.
Coal was secured at wholesale prices and in cases of need
supplied by the committee out of the relief funds.

36 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

But with all their efforts, the Board could not have handled
the tremendous work of relief had it not been for the gen-
erous and continuous support of other organizations and
of individuals who gave their time, money, supplies, and
whatever influence they had to the cause, of the strikers. The
commissary stores themselves were ably assisted by men and
women who gave their services free of charge, or whose
services were paid for by the organizations they represented.
Groceries were purchased from companies that sold them at
wholesale prices and frequently at cost prices. The editor
of the Jewish Courier, Mr. Lipsky, with the assistance of
others, carried on relief through orders on local grocery
stores and kosher butchers. A fund for milk was started
by Mrs. Bowen with- the contribution of one thousand dollars
and her own services as Chairman of the committee. In
addition the Citizens' Committee furnished 124,075 quarts of
milk up to February 2. But the greatest contribution along
those lines was made by the Jewish Workingmen's Confer-
ence. For ten weeks they issued individual meal tickets
weekly to three thousand strikers entitling them to one meal
a day. The tickets were issued on restaurants in three im-
portant centers and were good for seven 15-cent meals.
Altogether it is estimated that the Jewish Workingmen's
Conference contributed about thirty-five thousand dollars to
the relief of the strikers.

Public sympathy manifested itself in many other ways.
Clothing and shoes were distributed to the workers from
Northwestern University settlement, Hull House, and many
other centers of distribution. Labor papers all over the
country took up the fight and unions began to send in cash
donations. The Chicago Daily Socialist through its sale of
strike editions was able to turn in the sum of three thousand
dollars for the relief of the strikers. The Jewish Vorwaerts
of New York raised $415 for relief and added to it $1,800
collected by a house-to-house canvass of the Jewish district
in Chicago, given through the Jewish Workingmen's Con-
ference. All kinds of professional people offered their
services. " Doctors agreed to treat patients free of charge.

THE STRIKE OF 1910 37

Barbers gave free shaves, theatres gave benefit per-
formances. Private families housed and fed homeless
strikers. Druggists gave free drugs. Grocers and butchers
gave free food supplies to the various free supply and re-
lief stations. Clubs and societies gave benefit balls and
entertainments. Song writers and artists offered their pro-
ductions and gave the strikers the full profits, and the hotel
keepers refused to house the strike breakers." The Chicago
City Club Bulletin printed texts of successful agreements
then in existence in New York and Philadelphia. The
Political Equality League made inquiries and many other
leagues and clubs followed its example with requests for
information and for speakers informed on the subject to
address meetings. Business Men's Cxroups asked at head-
quarters how they might be sure that they were not tyuying
Hart, Schaffner and Marx garments, and many retail
houses found it profitable to remove labels of strike-bound
houses from their garments. The Illinois Suffrage Associa-
tion sent in financial contributions, the Socialist Women's
Strike Committee gave valuable assistance throughout the
strike, and churches of all denominations responded with
generous contributions. A letter advocating arbitration and
organization of the workers was sent by the Reverend Jenkin
Lloyd Jones, endorsed by the Industrial Committee of the
Churches of Chicago, to Hart, Schaffner and Marx. When
no reply came from the firm the letter and a statement of
the whole circumstance were issued as an open letter. The
following excerpts are enough to show the general tenor
of the letter :

" The following members of the Industrial Committee of the
Churches of Chicago call the attention of the public to the ac-
companying letter.

" The principles and methods it advocates are already exten-
sively used in industry in Chicago and throughout the country,
and have promoted a large measure of industrial peace.

" We believe that the time has come for public opinion in
Chicago to voice from all possible sources, a demand for their
application to the garment-making industry, and particularly
for the settlement of the present strike by some joint agreement
between the contending parties.

38 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

REV. JENKIN LLOYD JONES' LETTER.

" * The following communication was addressed to the firm
fifteen days ago. Whether in the travail it ever reached the
eyes of the firm, I have no way of knowing. I now give it to
the public, hoping that it will help make public sentiment. The
developments of the last two weeks confirm the conviction ex-
pressed in the letter. The only way for employers out of this
trouble is through it. Once the willingness to deal with the
employees in their organized capacity is realized it would be.
quite possible to organize a disinterested, high minded, per-
manent court of appeal to which perplexities too great to be
solved by the two parties could be referred.

" * You can (doubtless crush out this instinct to cooperate
among your employees, but it will only be for a time — the march
of civilization is back of them and against you. All the higher
handicrafts have practically vindicated their rights to organize.

" * Has not the time gone by when the intelligent business
man can talk about " his business being interfered with " by
those who have no rights in it when labor makes demands?
Legally speaking, the title is yet vested in your corporation;
but ethically speaking, the thousands of employees who help
make your business, without which your business cannot con-
tinue, are partners in the concern; they have vested rights;
many of them have brought their families across the seas ; they
have staked their earthly careers in their vocations, and have
acquired an efficiency oftentimes through successive generations,
which constitute an asset, which may well be set against your
capital * * * Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of your em-
ployees are traveling over the road which your forbears have
traveled. They are getting ready to take your places when you
are gone. They have a right to be reckoned with by organized
capital as organized labor.' '

The following is a summary of the purely financial con-
tributions received by the Strike Committee of the Women's
Trade Union League, taking no account of services or
supplies given free of charge:

Organized Labor $41,182

Socialist Women's Strike Committee 5,432

Churches 1,310

Clubs 712

Socialist Party 1,119

Employes 306

Teachei s and students . . 235

THE STRIKE OF 1910 89

Individuals 8,575

Chicago Daily Socialist (Collections) 2,300

Card (Collections) 479

Miscellaneous (Collections) 2,774

Polish Socialists 1,750

District Council No. 6, Donations 4,000

We have already seen how the publicity given by the
committees to the grievances of the workers and to the treat-
ment of strikers by the police influenced the opinion of the
general public. But another factor was brought to bear
on public opinion during the course of the strike, that proved
to be as potent as the others in rousing a sense of the in-
justice of the situation. This factor was the stubborn un-
willingness shown by both associations of manufacturers
to arbitrate the demands of the workers or even to treat
with them. The first effective evidence of this attitude ap-
peared in connection with another attempt at settlement,
this time initiated by the action of Alderman Merriam.
After several unsuccessful attempts, a resolution was finally*
passed by the City Council providing for the appointment
of a committee to arbitrate and attempt to settle the strike.
Representatives of the firm of Hart, Schaffner and Marx
agreed to meet the committee and the union leaders in an
attempt to arrive at some agreement, but members of the
manufacturers' associations refused to participate in a con-
ference if any union representatives were present. Alder-^j
man Merriam in a statement to one of the daily papers after
meeting with representatives of both associations, said:

" They declared they would not consent to any arbitration
of the questions at issue in any form or upon any terms. They
further stated that they expected their own employees to return
unconditionally if the agreement with Hart, Schaffner and
Marx was ratified. Arbitration is a firmly fixed principle in
industrial disputes, and in my judgment it ought to be applied
in this case. Those who decline to accept it assume a grave
responsibility to the community. If industrial war continues
the public should know exactly where this responsibility lies."

Even more effective than the publicity thus given to the
employers' attitude toward the proposed arbitration were

40 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the disclosures made later by an Illinois Senate Committee
appointed to investigate into the causes and facts of the
strike by a resolution passed in the Senate January 10. The
Committee consisted of Senators Henson, O'Connor,
McKenzie, Johnson and Gibson. Although the report of
the Committee to the Senate was not made until March 9,
a great deal of publicity was given to the testimony pre-
sented during its two weeks of hearings in January. In
reply to an invitation by the Senators to the Association to
submit a plan of settlement, Mr. Rose, President of the
National Wholesale Tailors Association, sent the following
letter:

" The National Wholesale Tailors Association respectfully
declines to submit to such a proposition, as no strike now
exists in our branch of the industry. All of our employes whom
we can use have returned to work."

The Chairman of the Senate Committee, in response to
this refusal, which was incorporated in the minutes, made
the following statement:

" I want to say this for the benefit of the balance of the com-
mittee, that the state of Illinois and the people of Chicago can-
not permit some manufacturers or labor unions to arbitrarily
stop the wheels of progress in Illinois and cause suffering, and
I am very frank to say to you that if I had the power I would
put the men in jail who refused to arbitrate this question now.
* * * No controversy can occur without a grievance."

Even newspapers hostile to the strikers up to this time
condemned this attitude in editorial comments such as this:

" Hunger and cold as potent peace makers alienate the
sympathy of the great majority of reasonable and humane
citizens."

Important evidence was disclosed also by the Senate
Investigation Committee concerning the blacklist system
carried on by the Medinah Temple labor office. The
following examples are typical of the testimony of other
witnesses :

Witness: In Nov., 1914, I worked at Fred Kaufman's and
we went out at noon. Then I was out about 6 or 8 months and

THE STRIKE OF 1910 41

after that I applied for a position at the Medinah Temple office
and they refused to give it to me until I resigned from the
union. I did so.

Chairman: Who asked you to resign?

Witness: Mr. Isaacs. [Mr. Isaacs was known to practi-
cally all the workers and was called to testify himself before
the Committee. He was in charge of the so-called Labor Bu-
reau, and kept records of all the workers.] I handed in my
resignation and then they promised me a position but never
gave it to me and they told me to come over from one day to
the next. He asked me one day if I would do him a favor and
I asked him what it was, and he offered me $10 to go to the
organization headquarters and secure him the names of those
men in the office at that time. I went but could not find any-
body there except officials. After that I went back to Mr.
Isaacs' office and gave him the names and he asked me if I got
any more names, and I said : " Here are the names of the men
in the office at present." He said " These men I got. I don't
want those names but get the names that I have not got." He
showed me some letters and tears off the bottom and says :
" These names I have gotten from men who send me the reports
every day." He said : " They find out who you are and what
you are and what goes on in the union, and then report to me
everyday." He said: " They are paid by me for doing this."

He gave me $5 for that and said " I will give you the other
$5 when you get some more. I will give you a week's time. In
the meantime I will try and find you a position," which he did.

* * * I worked there from August to September and then
was discharged without reason.

I went back to Isaacs and he said : " You go over and get
me some more names and I will see what I can do."

After that I went to the Chicago Tailors and asked for a posi-
tion without going to the office. Mr. Strauss hired me and
asked whether I had a card. I said " No, but I can get it." He
said : " I will telephone over and see if you are all right."

[The witness worked in this shop 3 or 4 days and then met
some union boys and went to a meeting and finally decided to
go out on strike with the others in that shop. When he got,
to the union office he found a message waiting for him to the
effect that if he did not come and take away his tools they would
be thrown out. He went back and took his tools and went out.]

Then I went to Isaacs afterward, time and time again for
positions and he said : " No. We can't do anything for you,
you will starve in Chicago. There is nothing for you; we will
not give you a job."

42 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

[The witness went to Detroit and after more than a year
wrote to Isaacs to see if he could get a job yet and Isaacs wrote
him a letter, saying that Association houses were working on
an open shop plan. On his return the witness went to Mr.
Tobias and Mr. Morris, both associated with Mr. Isaacs in the
Medinah Temple office, but was not able to get anything at all.
He was completely barred from employment in all Association
houses from that time on.]

Another witness testified that he was told to go to Medinah
Temple for a permit to work and they wouldn't give it, but gave
no reason whatever. He was required to resign from the union,
before he could get any work after going out on strike.

Another witness claimed that he was blacklisted in St. Louis
because of his union activities and when he tried to get work in
Chicago he found that the Medinah Temple Office had his com-
plete record and he was blacklisted again.

Another witness, the wife of a cutter, testified that her hus-
band had been unable to get work for a long time. " I went to
Mr. Isaacs because my husband always came home with the
same story that he could not get a permit to go to work an<^
at last I became doubtful and I said I'd like to know the reason
why and I should go and see what was stopping him from getting
a position. He gave me Isaacs' address and I went to see him.

" He told me, after I asked him what was the matter, that he
(my husband) acted as a radical during the strike and that
they had not forgotten about it. I asked him if he had any
proofs * * * and he said no, but they had a list of matters
that they knew about him and that was enough."

Chairman : " Did they say your husband's name was men-
tioned in that list?"

Witness : " Yes Sir. I told him that it was hard for me
and that from my marriage my husband was considered a good
workman, but he said he could do nothing."

In its report to the Senate, the Committee made the fol-
lowing comments on the evidence in regard to blacklisting:

" Your committee wish to report that in view of the testimony
and the wording of the statutes, we are constrained to believe
that the maintenance and operation of the said labor bureau in
the Medinah Temple, in the city of Chicago, in so far as it pre-
vents persons from securing employment, is in violation of the
statutes of the State of Illinois, and is derogatory to the rights
and interests of the workers, and that the same should be imme-
diately dissolved."

THE STRIKE OF 1910 43

In the meantime, Rickert and other officers of the United
Garment Workers were pressing a new agreement on the
strikers. Hart, Schaffner and Marx agreed to meet a com-
mittee of the strikers, as suggested by Alderman Merriam,
although the Association houses refused. The proposed
agreement resulting from this meeting with Hart, Schaffner
and Marx, known as the City Hall Agreement, provided
briefly for the return of all former employees of Hart,
Schaffner and Marx, except those who were guilty of vio-
lence, within fifteen days from the date of signing; no dis-
crimination against any employees because of membership or
activity in a union; and for the creation of an Arbitration
Committee of five, two members selected by each party and
the fifth by those four, to take up and consider the grievances
of the employees and devise a method for settling those griev-
ances in the future.

This agreement, backed by the full approval and endorse-
ment of the Joint Strike Conference Board, the United Gar-
ment Workers' officers, and the Mayor of Chicago, was
presented to the strikers for their consideration. But the")
strikers were unmistakably opposed to the terms. The
grounds for their opposition were in the main as follows :

1. Inasmuch as the agreement affected only Hart,
Schaffner and Marx workers, acceptance of it would break
the strike of other workers who would still be out. It was
too much like a betrayal of their fellow strikers.

2. The clause in the agreement providing that workers
guilty of violence would not be reinstated created a great
deal of resentment.

3. The agreement contained no specific and definite
recognition of the union.

A great deal of pressure was brought to bear on the
strikers to accept this agreement, but finally on December
8th, eight days after the proposed agreement was put before
the strikers, Rickert admitted that " the people had ex-
pressed their disapproval." In his report to the United
Garment Workers' Convention in 1912, Rickert says: " In
turning down this agreement, the people repudiated the

44 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

Strike Board and Settlement Committee which had recom-
mended its acceptance." The Strike Conference Board,
however, in the words of the Women's Trade Union League
Report, " recognized the supreme right of the strikers to
make the final decision on their own affairs " and again
resumed the conduct of the strike. The following letter was
sent to the City Council Committee and the Mayor inform-
ing them of the workers' decision :

" We beg leave to report to you the refusal of the workers
of Hart, Schaffner and Marx now on strike to accept the plan
of settlement as recommended by us.

" Every reasonable effort has been made to secure a favorabje
result in the submission of this plan of settlement to the striking
employes of Hart, Schaffner and Marx.

" The refusal of the representatives of the National Whole-
sale Tailors' Association and the National Wholesale Clothiers'
Association to accept these terms of settlement and the public
declaration of their determination to ' fight to a finish ' has re-
sulted in a feeling of resentment among the strikers and a,
natural desire to stand or fall together. * * * "

The first settlement occurred on January 9, when the
firm of Sturm Mayer settled with its strikers and reinstated
all of them.

On the llth of January, Rickert presented another plan
to the Joint Conference Board and Strikers' Committee,
authorizing the Board to offer an agreement to any of the
firms willing to accept its terms. The terms were briefly as
follows :

1. All former employees were to return within ten days
of the signing of the agreement. No mention was made of
exceptions in the case of those guilty of violence.

2. There must be no discrimination against workers be-
cause of membership in the United Garment Workers of
America.

3. An arbitration committee of three was to be chosen,
for the purpose of considering and adjusting all other griev-
ances, and their ruling was to be binding.

THE STRIKE OF 1910 45

The Board passed a resolution approving the agreement
and appointed a committee composed of Rickert, Mrs.
Robins, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Harris (a member of the
Strikers' Executive Committee), to consider a settlement.
Hart, Schaffner and Marx signified their willingness to
accept this agreement, and it was then presented to the
striking Hart, Schaffner and Marx workers.

The strike, so far as the workers of Hart, Schaffner and
Marx were concerned, was almost over. A mass-meeting
of the strikers was held in Hod Carriers' Hall. The meet-
ing was addressed, among others, by Hillman and Marim-
pietri. They urged acceptance of the terms of the agree-1
ment, which provided for the return of all workers, without
discrimination because of either union membership or activ-
ity, and for the establishment of arbitration machinery in
the adjustment of present and future grievances. The terms
meant substantially, if not literally, union recognition. It_J
was for this and for the removal of just grievances that the
strikers had been fighting for months. There was, of course,
some opposition to these terms. But after considerable dis-
cussion, the proposed agreement was ratified and the forward
march of organized labor in Hart, Schaffner and Marx
began.

Mr. Rickert's account of the same event, in his report to
the United Garment Workers' Convention, was as follows:

" The plan was submitted to the people in the various halls
and was approved in all but three of them ; and in these three,
the workers who had gathered there were not employees of Hart,
Schaffner and Marx * * * Some of those who had been in
favor of it went around to the halls and in the public highways
afterwards denouncing it because it did not provide for a closed
shop."

The result was that the agreement as approved by the
Joint Conference Board was signed by Hart, Schaffner and
Marx and by Mr. Rickert and went into effect on January «.
14, all the strikers of that firm returning to work. The
others, of course, were still out on strike.

46 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

On February 3rd, at a meeting of the Strikers' Executive
Committee at which Mr. Rickert and his organizers were the
only ones present, the general strike was suddenly declared
off. This action was taken without the slightest warning,
without a referendum vote of the strikers, without even
formal consultation or meeting with the Joint Conference
Board, which for 14 weeks had had charge of the strike, and
which represented the organizations that had been giving
their time, money and resources so generously to the
strikers. It was done while representatives of the Chicago
Federation of Labor and the Women's Trade Union League,
the principal organizations in the Board besides the United
Garment Workers, were present in the building and even
on the same floor. The Women's Trade Union League
called it a " hunger bargain." The workers, already hard-
pressed by the long winter months of privation, their faith
already shaken in their leaders, were now demoralized by
this action, and had no choice but to give in. The strike
was over.

As many as could returned to work. Many who went
back to their old shops were refused employment. Others
encountered conditions even more intolerable than before.
A frequent answer to those seeking re-employment would
be: " You're a good speaker, go down to your halls again,
they want you there." And so they trickled back, a few at
a time, with a deep and underlying bitterness toward those
who had turned their long fight into apparent defeat. They
returned without agreement, without concessions, without
any guarantee for fair treatment, without any adjustment
or means of adjustment for the grievances that had driven
them to strike.

Yet in more important ways, even for those who went
back to Association houses, the strike had not ended in
defeat. Out of it rose a new generation of young leaders
who were to help the clothing workers rise to a position of
security, power and well-being that sets a standard for other
industries. It was in the strike of 1910 that the names of
Sidney Hillman, Frank Rosenblum, Sam Levin, A. D.

Joseph Schaffner

THt LIBRARY
(tf THt

f A.LINIHI

THE STRIKE OF 1910 47

Marimpietri and many other future leaders of the workers
first emerge. With the rise of these leaders there appeared
also not only the hope of a new regime, but a long, steady ac-
tive drive toward its attainment. The organization of the
Hart, Schaffner and Marx workers meant alhiost as much to
all the other clothing workers of Chicago as to themselves.
From 1910 until the final triumph in 1919, Chicago was
the scene of a series of attempts to organize the entire mar-
ket. Without the nucleus formed by the organized Hart,
Schaffner and Marx workers, and without their constant*
efforts and support, which they were only in a position to
give as a result of the strike, Chicago might still be an
unorganized sweat-shop market.

The results of the strike as far as the Hart, Schaffner and
Marx workers themselves are concerned are obvious. Aside
from all consideration of improved conditions, wages, hours,
the agreement of 1911 meant the beginning of a relationship
between the firm and its employees, unbroken by whatever
storms swept over the rest of the Chicago clothing industry,
and undisturbed even by the clothing workers' revolution in
1914. It meant the practical and successful working out of
an experiment in collective bargaining and the development
of the idea of permanent impartial machinery for the adjust-
ment of industrial disputes.

As a means of educating and training the workers for
organization and organized activity, the strike was of the
utmost value. It was not only a matter of technical training
in the method of organizing and conducting a strike, but of
the actual knowledge of each other's condition and realiza-
tion of their community of interest. As a result of this
realization and of the bond that always comes of fighting
a common enemy against heavy odds, the workers came out
of the fight with a new sense of their fellowship with each
other ; with a spirit of solidarity that would not be defeated ;
and with a new consciousness of the fact that as their griev-
ances were not individual but common, their hope for the
future lay not in separate but in common action.

48 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

" The one great proof that the strikers have learned the les-
son of solidarity and unity of action lies in the fact that meet-
ings independent of the Federation of Labor or the Garment
Workers Union have been held twice weekly since the ending
of the strike. The meetings have been well attended, the halls
being just as full as at any time of the strike. The tailors are
studying and when another strike does come another story will
be written."

It is clear from this statement that one of the important
lessons the strike taught the workers was how far it was safe
to entrust their hopes to their past leaders. Thus in the
very failure of this strike can be seen, in the light of the later
events, the signs of future success and of the final break
in 1914.

CHAPTER III
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARBITRATION

THE agreement that was signed on January 14, 1911, be-
tween the firm of Hart, Schaffner and Marx and the Joint
Board of its employees was a simple document. But it
marked the beginning of a period of uninterrupted peace
between the company and its organized employees, undis-
turbed by the industrial storms that again and again swept
over the Chicago clothing market in the next eight years.

The importance of the agreement to the workers lay pri-
marily in two results that it accomplished. First, through
the recognition and strengthening of the organized workers
of Hart, Schaffner and Marx, the great campaigns for the
organization of the rest of the market were made possible.
The spirit of the unorganized workers was maintained and
strengthened with the help of the organized until the final*
triumph of 1919. Secondly, the agreement of 1911 was the
nucleus out of which has developed the present successful
agreement, with its elaborate system for the arbitration and »
adjustment of labor problems and for the preservation of
industrial law and order. Throughout the history of this
agreement the development of the power and strength of the
organized workers can be measured by the changes made in
the agreement. With the growth of that power can be traced
also the development of the intricate machinery established
under the agreement^ and of the code of industrial law that
now governs the relations between the union and the firm.

The text of the first agreement, which ended the strike of
1910, outlines briefly the conditions for the return of the \
strikers :

" First : All the former employees of Hart, Schaffner and
Marx who are now on strike shall be taken back and shall return
to work within 10 days from the date hereof.

" Second : There shall be no discrimination of any kind
whatsoever against any of the employees of Hart, Schaffner

50 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

and Marx, because they are or they are not members of the,
United Garment Workers of America.

" Third : An, arbitration committee, consisting of three
members, shall be appointed. Within three days from the date
thereof the employees of ftart, Schaffner and Marx shall select
one member thereof ; within three days thereafter Hart, Schaff-
ner and Marx shall select one member thereof ; and the two mem-
bers thus selected shall immediately proceed to select the third
member of such committee.

" Fourth: Subject to the provisions of this agreement, said
arbitration committee shall take up, consider, and adjust what->
ever grievances, if any, the employees of Hart, Schaffner and
Marx who are now on strike shall have and shall fix a method for
the settlement of grievances, if any, in the future. The finding
of the said committee or a majority thereof, shall be binding on
both parties."

Hart, Schaffner and Marx at the time of the signing of
this agreement were employing about 6,000 workers, men,
women and girls, who were represented hy a Joint Board,
composed of delegates from local unions of the United Gar-
ment Workers and three delegates from the Women's Trade
Union League. Under the third clause of the agreement,
V each side selected one arbitrator, the Joint Board of the
local unions appointing Mr. Clarence Darrow as their arbi-
trator and the company, Mr. Carl Meyer. These two then
met to select jointly the third arbitrator. Dean Wigmore
of Northwestern University Law School was agreed on, but
was unable to serve, and the two arbitrators could not agree
on another third member at that time. It was; finally decided
that the two arbitrators should, for the time being, act
alone as the Board of Arbitration. Working under this

larrangement, on March 13, 1911, the arbitrators made a de-
cision of the utmost importance, which became in practice a
part of the agreement. This decision provided briefly for the
following: (1) sanitary and health conditions, including
proper ventilation, and at least three-quarters of an hour for
dinner; (2) so far as practicable equal division of work
among all the workers in slack seasons; (3) the establish-
ment by the company of some method of handling future

/ grievances " through some person or persons in its employ;

Clarence Darrow

William O. Thompson

Representatives of the Union on the Hart, Schaffner and Marx Board of

Arbitration

of m

and any employee, either by himself or by any individual
fellow-worker, shall have the right to present any grievance
at any reasonable time, and such grievance shall be promptly
considered by the person or persons appointed by said firm,
and in case such grievance shall not be adjusted, the person
feeling himself so aggrieved shall have the right to apply to
some member of said firm for the adjustment of such griev-
ance, and in case the same shall not then be adjusted, such
grievance may be presented to Clarence Darrow and Carl
Meyer, who shall be constituted as a permanent board of
arbitration to settle any questions that may arise between
any of the employees of said firm and said firm for the term
of two years from April 1, 1911, during which time these
findings shall be in full force "; (4) wage increases and ad- *
justments as follows: a general minimum for all workers of
$5 a week; a minimum for males over 17 of $6 and over 18
of $8, and a uniform increase of 10 per cent, to all workers;
(5) the establishment of the 54-hour week, and the payment
for overtime work at the rate of time and a half.

In accordance with the clause of the decision providing for
the establishment by the company of some means of handling
future grievances, the Labor Complaint Department was *
immediately established by Hart, Schaffner and Marx with
Professor Earl Dean Howard as its chief. The duties of
the department, as described by Mr. Howard in his testimony
before the Industrial Relations Commission of 1914 and in
other statements, were to maintain a system for the prompt
discovery and investigation of any abuses or complaints that
might arise among the employees; to recommend measures
for the elimination of the sources of complaint ; to represent
the company before the Board of Arbitration (or Trade'31
Board later) ; to negotiate with the business agents of the
unions ; to take general charge of employment, discipline and
discharge, and of welfare work. The firm believed that the
main difficulty in the past had been the lack of contact and «
lack of means of presenting grievances with any expectation
of their being satisfactorily handled. The establishment of

52 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the Labor Complaint Department was an attempt to meet
this need.

i Previous to the 1910 strike the industry had been noted
for the prevalence of small section or shop strikes and so

(jiabitual had these become that they were taken as a matter
of course and were thought to be inherent in the industry
itself. Stoppages were simply necessary evils and there was
no use in trying to eliminate them. During the first year of
the agreement little progress was made in the elimination
of these strikes. Mr. Howard says that for a while they
were practically as frequent and as bitter as before the strike,
despite all his efforts.

" I used to go about in the shops whenever there was a strike
and make a speech to them and describe the agreement. Mr.
Hillman used to do so, too, and we really had to instruct the
people that this meant a new way of adjusting grievances. The
old way was the only way they knew."

Until September, 1911, when they first came to be regarded
as serious offenses, sudden stoppages occurred almost every
week. There was as yet no general understanding of the
agreement or of the means afforded by the agreement for

[other methods of settling grievances than striking.

Friction and misunderstandings continued during this first
year not through lack of effort on the part of the Labor De-
partment, but because the machinery at its disposal was not
adequate for its needs. The Labor Complaint Department,
during the first years of its existence, handled nearly 800
complaints. No records were kept of the disposition of these

peases, but an analysis of the complaints shows the chief
sources of irritation to have been inequality of piece prices,
varying quality of work demanded, abuse\of foreman's power
of discharge, lack of a practical and easy method of present-
ing grievances, recurrence of small strikes resulting in bad
feeling, and lack of a method for the division of work in slack

Lseasons. Problems as serious as these would have taxed even
the best equipped system at that time, for to neither side
had the significance and possibilities of the agreement be-
come as yet clear. But in addition to the complexity of these

DEVELOPMENT OF ARBITRATION 58

complaints, the Department as constituted could not pos-
sibly handle such a mass of problems speedily and satisfac-
torily without more time, more experience and a clearer
definition of its powers and limitations. The failure of the
Labor Department to handle these matters promptly as they
arose resulted in the swamping of the arbitrators with a
multitude of unnecessary detail, which theoretically should
have been disposed of by the Labor Department.

The complaints that were thus presented to the Arbitra-
tion Board were so numerous and so varied that in point of
time alone it would have been impossible for the Arbitra-
tion Board to handle them, while the confusion that arose
in presenting cases through the Labor Complaint Depart-
ment occasioned even more delay. But in addition to the
delay involved in this procedure these cases required an inti-
mate arid technical knowledge of the industry in all its parts.
It was obviously impossible to expect a Board of three, or-
ganized for the arbitration of fairly general principles of
conduct and relations, to have at its command either the
time or the technical knowledge that were needed. During
the first year the arbitrators met more than fifty times. A
great many oral and only twenty written decisions were
made. Lack of means to enforce the decisions or to make *
them known to the parties often caused injustice, and the
failure to make decisions promptly enough produced serious
friction. It was increasingly evident that the system was not
practicable as then constituted and that the Board of Arbi-
tration could not handle promptly and justly both the tech-
nical questions and the matters of principle that were brought
before it.

Many of the difficulties and injustices that arose under this '
system were involved in the process of price-making. Under
a decision of the arbitrators the company issued complete
specifications for all operations and a full statement of defi-
nitions and processes. They established piece prices for
these operations with the approval of the arbitrators, subject^
to change only by the consent of the arbitrators, as provided

54 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

in the decision. In practice the effect of these specifications
was frequently to lower the earning capacity of the workers.
In such cases the proper procedure was for the complainant
to formulate a grievance and to present it to the Labor Com-
plaint Department for adjustment. If no satisfactory set-
tlement could be reached (which was usually the case) , the
complaint went to the arbitrators, who would generally de-
cide in effect to give an increase in prices so as to maintain
former earnings. But by the time these decisions came out
the workers in question would have been working at the old
rates and the additional problem would have been raised as
to when the new rates had become effective. In the meantime
new specifications might be drawn up by the company which
would practically nullify whatever adjustment the Board of
Arbitration had made.

Discontent grew so bitter that the employees and arbitra-
tors finally informed the company that there was danger of
serious trouble unless some fundamental read j ustments were
made. As a result a preliminary conference was arranged
for March, 1912. At this conference the employees were
represented by Mrs. Raymond Robins of the Women's
Trade Union League, John Fitzpatrick of the Chicago
Federation of Labor, W. O. Thompson and Henry M. Ash-
ton, and the firm was represented by Joseph Schaffner, Carl
Meyer, E. D. Howard and Milton A. Strauss. This infor-
mal conference reached on April 1 an agreement providing
for the appointment of a committee of five, two representing
each side and the fifth chosen by the four other members, for
the following purposes: x

(1) To create a board for the adjusting and fixing of
prices when necessary, and the adjusting of any other mat-
ters that might arise in dispute between Hart, Schaffner and
Marx and their employees, the neutral member of the board
to be appointed by the committee.

(2) To formulate rules for the guidance of this board,
such rules to be binding during the continuance of the 1911
agreement, until April 1, 1913.

Officers and Executive Board Members
Women's Local 275

Officers and Executive Board Members Lithuanian
Coat Makers Local 269

Officers and Executive Board Members Sewing
Machine Adjusters Local 272

THt tiBHAfll

OF THfc
HWtiSffT OF ILLINOIS

DEVELOPMENT OF ARBITRATION 55

The Committee's powers and limitations were defined in
the following clauses of the agreement:

" It is expressly agreed upon that the agreement made oil
January 14 and the decision of Clarence Darrow and Carl
Meyer, the arbitrators appointed under said agreement, which
decision is dated March 13, 1911, shall remain in all respects
in full force and effect, and neither said committee nor said
board so appointed shall have any right to take up any question
of increasing wages or of providing for any sort of what is
commonly termed a closed shop, or to make any rules or regu-
lations in violation of or inconsistent with any of the provisions
of said agreement of January 14, 1911, or said decision of
March 13, 1911.

" Said board when appointed shall be solely for the purpose
of acting as an original tribunal, and an appeal shall always
lie to the arbitration board created by the said agreements from
the decisions of said board."

The committee of five that was finally appointed was com-
posed of E. D. Howard and Carl Meyer for the company;
W. O. Thompson and Sidney Hillman for the employees,
and Charles H. Winslow as the fifth and neutral member.
This committee made its report, creating the Trade Board
and the rules of procedure for its guidance as provided by
the agreement. Following a preamble which summarized
briefly the history of the relations between Hart, Schaffner
and Marx and their employees and the facts that led to the
appointment of the committee for establishing the Trade
Board, the more important provisions of the report are as
follows :

ORGANIZATION AND MEMBERSHIP.

The Trade Board shall consist of 11 members with practical
experience in the trade, if possible, five to be chosen by each
side. All but the Chairman must be employees of Hart, Schaff-
ner and Marx. Any member of the Board may be removed
and replaced by the power appointing him. Five alternates
are to be appointed by each side in case of absences, to avoid
delays. Weekly meetings of the Board are to be held and spe-
cial meetings may be called with 24 hours' notice. Both sides
must have equal voting power in all questions arising before the
Board. The neutral member of the Board will be appointed
by the Committee of 5 and will hold office until the expiration

of the original agreement and will act as Chairman of the
Board. The duties of the Chairman shall be to preside at all
meetings, to certify to all decisions and proceedings of the board,
to maintain order and expedite the business before the board by
limiting discussion or stopping irrelevant debate, and to con-
duct the examination of witnesses and to instruct deputies, and,
upon request, to grant stay of the orders of the board, at his
discretion, penaing appeal.

JURISDICTION OF BOARD.

Said Board is to have original jurisdiction of all matters
arising under the agreement of January 14, 1911, and the deci-
sion thereunder of Messrs. Darrow and Meyer, of March 13,
1911.

Representatives of both sides shall appoint deputies for each
branch of the trade allowing as much freedom as possible in
the formation of rules for their guidance. One of the deputies
shall be called " Chief Deputy," and shall keep the records, be
responsible for placing matters on the calendar for the Trade
Board, and in general be responsible for the orderly carrying on
of affairs of the Trade Board on behalf of his party. Deputies
are to do whatever work is assigned them by the Trade Board,
take up grievances and investigate them promptly with depu-
ties of the other side, and report decisions in writing if they
come to agreement without the aid of the Board.

Their decisions will be binding unless appeal is made to the
Trade Board within three days. If they fail to agree, the case
will go to the Trade Board, which will hear argument on both
sides, and decide.

Deputies must be either employees of Hart, Schaffner and
Marx or connected with the Joint Board of Garment Workers
of Hart, Schaffner and Marx.

APPEAL TO ARBITRATION BOARD.

In case either party should desire to appeal from any decision
of the Trade Board, or from any change of these rules by the
Trade Board to the Board of Arbitration, they shall have the
right to do so upon filing a notice in writing with the Trade
Board of such intention within 30 days from the date of the
decision, and the said Trade Board shall then refer said matter
to the Board of Arbitration, where the same shall be given an
early hearing by a full board of three members.

General rules to expedite the practical work of the Trade
Board provide methods for speedy attention to all griev-

DEVELOPMENT OF ARBITRATION 57

ances ; enforcement of decisions of the deputies or the Trade
Board ; immediate investigation of stoppages ; appeal to the
Board of Arbitration in case of refusal to obey decisions;
submission of new specifications to the Trade Board when
price changes are contemplated ; conforming of price changes
to changes in work, and the basing of new prices as far as
possible on old; and notification of employees against whom
complaints are brought, either at or before the time of enter-
ing complaint, so that they may notify their deputies. For
the first time it is clearly recognized that stoppages are con-
trary to the spirit of the agreement :

" If such stoppage shall occur because the person in charge
of the shop shall have refused to allow the people to continue
work, he shall be ordered to immediately give work to the peo-
ple, or in case the employees have stopped work, the deputies
shall order the people to immediately return to work, and in
case they fail to return to work within an hour from such time
such people shall be considered as having left the employ of the
corporation, and shall not be entitled to the benefit of these
rules."

Except for a change later made in the numbers of mem-
bers of the Trade Board from 11 to 5, and other changes of
detail this is substantially the constitution of the Trade
Board as it has operated since 1912. The first officers of
the Trade Board were as follows:

Chairman — Mr. James Mullenbach.

Workers' Representatives: Smith, Marimpietri, Kaminsky,
Spitzer, Hirsch, Feinberg, Goldenstein, Taback.

Company Representatives : Larson, Weinberg, Masche, Gut-
man, Duske, Leis.

Workers' Deputies: Hillman (Chief), representing the coat
tailors ; Levin, the cutters ; Miss Abramowitz, the vestmakers ;
Rothbart, the pantmakers.

Company Deputies : Howard, Chief ; Campbell, Assistant.

Soon after the adoption of this agreement it became clear
that the original Board of Arbitration could function more
effectively in its new capacity as a Board for the determina-
tion of general principles if the third arbitrator were chosen.
Accordingly Mr. J. E. Williams was chosen Chairman of the

58 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

Board of Arbitration in December, 1912, and held that po-
sition until his death in 1919. Immediately after his appoint-
ment as Chairman and as a result largely of his intervention,
several cases were disposed of by negotiation without de-
cision of the Board. This method of settling whatever could
be settled by informal arrangements between the parties or
by negotiation has always been held by both sides and by
the Board to be the best possible method of adjusting small
differences, once the principle involved has been clearly estab-
lished. The work of the deputies under the Trade Board
was calculated to further this policy, whereby small or de-
tailed problems can be adjusted before they become serious
enough to be real grievances. It is a method that can only
be practiced where there is a permanent organization created
for that purpose, a clearly established set of fundamental
principles mutually agreed upon, and a maximum amount
of faith on the part of each party in the integrity and good
sense of the leaders on the other side. The adjustment of
grievances through the work of the deputies was, of course,
subject to review by the Trade Board either on appeal by
either party or where the deputies failed to agree. Their
success in settling cases without resort to the Board is shown
by the following record of adjustments:

From April 1, 1912, to .Tune, 1914, the deputies adjusted
* 1,178 cases, or 84.1 per cent, of the total number; 206 cases,
or 14.7 per cent, were decided by the Trade Board, and only
17, or 1.2 per cent, went as far as the Board of Arbitration.
The disposition of the cases adjusted by the deputies in the
first instance are not recorded, but the decisions of the Trade
Board and the Board of Arbitration are completely recorded,
and will be discussed in other chapters.

How far the Trade Board succeeded in accomplishing the
purposes for which it was created is indicated in the statement
by Mr. Winslow in a bulletin of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics :

" In the main, the Trade Board has served its purpose * * *
to provide a tribunal of practical men working in the industry,
who should constitute a court of original jurisdiction — a court

DEVELOPMENT OF ARBITRATION 59

competent to give more prompt and equitable service than
could be reasonably required of the Board of Arbitration."

Hillman, in his testimony before the Federal Industrial Re-
lations Commission, said :

"This Trade Board was created so that it was really a new
method of adjusting complaints — and that is an adjustment by
the workers themselves. It introduces really what I call the
new principle in organization, that if the workers are to be
disciplined for any violation of the agreement, they themselves
partly should be the judges."

The procedure for bringing in disputes since the creation
of the Trade Board has been as follows: complaint is filed
with the Labor Department, the two deputies of the Trade
Board, one for each side, are informed of the case, they con-
duct a joint investigation in the shop and try to adjust the
grievance. If they fail the case is automatically put on the
Trade Board docket. The Trade Board then hears the case,
calls witnesses, and either makes a decision or sends the case
back to the deputies with instructions or recommendations.
Gradually, as the machinery developed, decisions ,<of the
Trade Board came to be made more and more often by the
deciding vote cast by the fifth member, the chairman. Thus
the institution of the " Impartial Chairman " came into
existence. The making of piece work rates, which became
one of the functions of the Trade Board, is handled by a rate
committee of three, one representing each side, and the third
the Chairman of the Trade Board. In practice, however, the
actual making of rates is usually done by the two members
of the committee without the Chairman. In their decisions
they are guided by the general rules agreed upon or laid
down by the Board (e. g., changes in prices must correspond
to changes in work). If the two agree, specifications and
rates are recorded and put into effect. If they cannot agree,
the full committee meets and makes a decision. Appeal may
be taken from this decision to the Board of Arbitration if
necessary, but no alterations are permitted after a decision
has been made without the permission of the committee, or
on appeal, permission from the Arbitration Board.

60 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

Problems or disputes involving general principles not
already established will go before the Board of Arbitration
directly, but all others may come before the Trade Board as
a court of first instance. Some idea of the variety of the
cases handled by the Trade Board, and their disposition can
be seen from the following table :

NUMBER OF DECISIONS OF TRADE BOARD IN FAVOR OF UNION
AND IN FAVOR OF COMPANY, BY NATURE OF GRIEVANCE,
_ MAY 8, 1912, TO JUNE 1, 1914.

Grievance

No. of
cases filed

Decisions
in favor
of union

Decisions
in favor
of Company

Wrongful discharge

75

24

34

Additional work or prices too low . .

42

12

5

Disputes in price making

31

4

3

Reduction of rates of cutters

18

6

5

Discrimination against individuals or
Overcrowded sections

sections 15
14

5
2

4

Preferring non-union help

7

3

1

Other grievances .

21

5

2

Total 223 61 54

One of the most important contributions of this permanent
adjustment machinery is the development of a working code
of industrial law. The agreement itself is the constitution or
fundamental law, while the decisions and precedents they
establish are analogous to the common law. Thus these de-
cisions and understandings have in time developed into a
code of rules and procedure that all who work under the
system must understand and be able to apply. The deputies
and representatives of both sides must be thoroughly familiar
with the law established, in order that they may adjust as
many disputes as possible " out of court " fairly and equit-
ably, and in the spirit of the agreement. E. D. Howard, in
his testimony before the Industrial Relations Commission,
described his own experience with this development :

" This ( organic growth of law) grows up through precedent
established by various bodies and by people who have an op-
portunity to lay down policies. These precedents become law.
At first, when you have a condition of no government, or des-
potism, and you are trying to change over to a republican foric

DEVELOPMENT OF ARBITRATION 61

of government, which this is, you must have all these things
worked out, you must have the constitution worked out, and
you must have the fundamental law laid down, and you must
have interpretations of it, and legislation * * * At first
everything came up with us, all sorts of questions. Mr. Hill-
man and I would try to settle them ourselves. Of course, we
could not, in a good many cases, and we by mutual agreement
would say, * Let us have this thing settled ; let us have this
precedent established ; let us have laws and legislation ' and we
would refer it to a board of arbitration, and the board of ar-
bitration gradually guided us, and has gradually enacted what
expresses to a large number the ideas of the principles of justice
in this industry, and since we have had this we have been able
to settle practically all grievances."

Professor Tufts attributes the steady and consistent
growth of these principles and precedents in part to the
character and permanence of the personnel of the boards,
which have made possible the development of a coherent and
unified policy. Mr. Williams was Chairman of the Board of
Arbitration for seven years, and Mr. Mullenbach of the
Trade Board since 1912. Another factor was the practice
of having the parties immediately concerned represented in
cases by their deputies or labor managers, who are naturally
more expert in presenting their cases and better acquainted
with the detailed administration of the agreement. All this
development of principles as the Trade Board became an
established institution was of course not a matter of one or
two years, but a long and slow matter of experiment and
education that is still in the process of development. In the
meantime, however, other important changes were taking
place in the collective agreement and in the organization of
the workers themselves.

The original agreement expired April 1, 1913, and as that
date approached the situation was seen to be serious. Two"^
months before the date of expiration the workers presented
the following demands as a condition of the renewal of the
agreement :

1) All workers must be members in good standing of the
United Garment Workers and new employees must join the j
union within two weeks after employment.

62 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

* 2) The fifty-hour week for tailors and the forty-eight-hour
week for cutters and trimmers.

3) Tailors: overtime must be paid for at the rate of time
and a half; no overtime on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays ; $16
minimum weekly wage; increases to be arbitrated; price com-
mittee to be created to determine prices and changes according
to certain rulings.

4) Continuation of present Board of Arbitration during life
of agreement.

5) $9 a week minimum for all workers.

6) No worker may be discharged without sufficient cause.

7) Overcrowding is considered a grievance.

8) All privileges of old agreement not covered here to con-
tinue as before.

9) For other departments, various wage and rate adjust-
Iments.

By an overwhelming majority the workers declared that if
their demand for the union shop were not granted, they would
strike. The Company objected on the ground that the em-
ployes were not sufficiently experienced to hold such power.
This was, of course, the most important demand of the work-
ers and both sides seemed determined not to yield. No agree-
ment appeared possible and the workers prepared to strike
on April 1st. It was a serious crisis, all negotiations ceased,
and the arbitrators left the city. The Chairman of the Board,
Mr. Williams, arranged with the Company for an extension
of the period of the old agreement to May 13, 1913, to give
time for more negotiations and thus possibly avert a break ;
but the workers refused to accept the extension. Finally,
one week before the date of expiration, Chairman Williams
and the Chief Deputies (Hillman and Howard) presented
to both sides a tentative agreement providing for a prefer-
ential union shop, leaving practically all other issues in the
hands of the Board of Arbitration, and providing for the
continuation of the old agreement until another agreement
could be reached.

On March 28th the Chairman issued the following state-
ment of his interpretation of the agreement, in order that
both sides might understand clearly what was involved:

DEVELOPMENT OF ARBITRATION 63

" In facing the possibility of unsettled questions being sub-
mitted to arbitration, I find my present state of mind to be this :

" That, in addition to maintaining what has been gained in
the present agreement, the chief interest of the employees cen-
ters around the question of an increased efficiency of organiza-
tion, which requires a recognition of the need for such a sub-
stantial degree of preference as will tend to improve that effi-
ciency, while the chief interest of the employers centers around
the question of efficiency in business competition, which neces-
sarily includes a recognition and consideration of cost and
quality of production, with the shop cooperation and discipline
necessary to secure it.

" I find my mind still open and ready to receive and be in-
fluenced by any light that may be offered by either side, and
this statement is given to show, so far as I understand myself,
what my present attitude is on the questions which most need
to be considered and reconciled."

On March 29, 1913, the agreement was adopted and signed
by representatives of the firm, .of the Joint Board of the
Hart, Schaffner and Marx local unions, the Central Federa-
tion of Labor and the Women's Trade Union League. The
signing of this agreement was unquestionably one of the most
important gains won so far by the organized clothing work-
ers of Chicago.

Under the terms of this agreement, known as the Prefer-
ential Shop Agreement, all matters in dispute, except the
question of preference, were left to the Board of Arbitration.
The rest of the 1913 agreement was really issued therefore in
the form of a Ruling of the Board of Arbitration, effective
from May 1, 1913, to May 1, 1916. The Ruling incorpo-
rated the agreement for preference of March 29th ; provided
an opportunity for renewal of the agreement before the time
of expiration in 1916; provided for the continuation of the
Trade and Arbitration Boards; enlarged the powers of the
latter by the so-called emergency clause; reduced hours of
work in the tailor shops from 54 to 52 ; retained the minimum
wage scale with certain exceptions; provided for pay at the
rate of time and a half for overtime work and no overtime
on Sundays or legal holidays; left the power of discharge
and discipline with the company, subject to review; ordered

64 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the maintenance as far as possible of a balance of work-
men in the sections in order to keep different departments
at work, complaints in regard to this being subject to
review by the Trade Board ; provided for the replacement of
workers displaced by abolished sections in work as nearly as
possible like their old work; and retained in full force those
parts of the old agreement not in conflict with this, or
[ obsolete.

The first decision prescribing the manner of applying the
principle of preference was made on August 30, 1913. This
application of the principle of preference is an excellent
example of the building up of a code or body of practical
law by the decisions of the Boards which interpret and apply
general principles. The gist of the decision was as follows:

" The test of preference is that it must strengthen the organi-
zation, while at the same time it must extend a ' reasonable pref-
erence ' to old employes, .and maintain the efficiency of shop
discipline * * * . The Board * * * offers the following
experimental interpretation: The application of the principle
of preference made herein is based on the degree of unionization
at present existing in the shops and is designed to prevent
union membership from falling below its present status, and by
its continued operation to strengthen the organization as con-
templated by the agreement."

The decision then proceeds to establish classes for degrees
of unionization, rules for preference in each class and for
promotion of sections from one class to another, for slack
season reduction in working force, and for preference in hir-
ing. Special rules were made later for the cutters and trim-
mers to the effect that workers in cutting and trimming rooms
shall be union members in good standing, except that the
company may employ 20 non-union cutters and 9 non-union
trimmers, this being less than 5 per cent, of the number em-
ployed in each case. In conclusion, Mr. Williams noted cer-
tain general rules in regard to the punishment of wilful stop-
pages or any other violation of the spirit and intention of the
agreement. This decision became the guide for future appli-
cations of the preferential clause of the agreement. The
strides forward that the union had made since 1911 and the

65

acceptance of the position that the organization should con-
tinue to gain and not lose strength, are clearly recognized in
the above decision. The preferential shop did in practice soon
come to mean the union shop, for with the increasing degree
of unionization, the union saw to it that its members were
available for preference when jobs were open. The degree of
unionization under this agreement was naturally of the ut-
most importance, for it determined the class of the sections
for purposes of preference, and in March, 1914, the Labor
Department directed the foremen to take a census of unioni-
zation. Three months later, the union took a census of its
members through the shop chairmen. The union figures, com-
piled in May, show a considerably larger proportion of union
men than were shown by the March census. The percentage*
of union members in the pants shop (the lowest percentage
of all the shops) , according to March figures, was 51, and in
May, 77.6. In the vest makers' section, the percentage of
union members was 89 according to the March figures and
96 in May, and in the coat makers 82 and 91.6 respectively.
The degree of unionization of cutters and trimmers was 95 %
at both dates. The total membership of the union calculated
from the dues collected in the four months from January to
May, shows an increase of from 2,592 in May, 1913, to 8,906j
in May, 1914, or 344 per cent.

After January, 1914, new groups of workers (including
ticket sewers, inspector tailors, and apprentices) who were
not unionized at the time of signing the agreement in March,
1913. were brought under the agreement, due to their subse-
quent organization by the union.

Another provision in the 1913 agreement that was of great
importance in the development of the strength of the union
was the clause limiting the power of discharge by requiring *
that a sufficient reason be shown for discharge and by provid-
ing for appeal in the case of those believing themselves un-
justly discharged.

The development of the position and function of the shop
chairman, as a recognized officer of the Union, came largely
during the life of this agreement. In the original agreement

66 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

there was no mention of a shop chairman. In fact, it was
specifically provided that " any employe — may present a
grievance in person or by an individual fellow worker." The
progress and status of the Union were later recognized in a
ruling to the effect that the Joint Board might designate
any fellow employe* of the company to represent them before
the Arbitration Board. The institution was thus officially
recognized and one " representative " was selected by the
cutters, one each by coat, vest and pants tailors, and one
each by the Polish and Lithuanian workers. Later, the
Board interpreted " fellow worker " to be the official repre-
sentative of the Union, the shop chairman, and still later the
rights and powers of the shop chairman were defined in the
Trade Board decisions of January 8, 1913, and September
5, 1914:

JANUAKY 8, 1913.

" Inasmuch as the agreement is silent on the matter at issue
a decision must rest on the most reasonable interpretation of
the intention of the agreement and of the circumstances of shop
operation.

" It is clearly intended and declared by the agreement that
an employee may elect to present a grievance by a fellow worker
rather than by himself. It will not be denied that an employe
may bring a complaint to the representative of the firm during
working hours. But under the agreement he may choose to
make such complaint by a fellow worker rather than by him-
self. In this case the agreement confers upon the fellow worker
all of the rights of making and adjusting the complaint that it
lodged in the employe. The employe is entitled to place his
representative — the individual fellow-worker — in full possession
of the facts of his complaint."

SEPTEMBER 5, 1914.

" In the present case the question centers on whether, when
an employe presents a complaint to an individual fellow worker
(shop chairman) the individual fellow worker has the right to
go to the place of work of the complainant and investigate the
complaint.

" On this point the board rules that the individual worker
(shop chairman) has the right to go to the place of work of the
employe, where it is necessary for him to get full possession

CD

te

oS

i

O)

Oi
CO

1-1

03
O

O

DEVELOPMENT OF ARBITRATION 67

•f the facts of the complaint. He may then take it up with
the foreman, but the foreman is not required to discuss the com-
plaint with him and may refer him to the other channels for ad-
justing complaints.

******

-•x

" The shop chairman thus became the representative of the '
workers on the premises of the firm. Individual workers file
their grievances with the chairman, who takes the matter up
with the shop representative of the firm. If the chairman of_^
the shop does not succeed in adjusting the matter, the griev-
ances are brought (by the shop chairman) to the attention of
the respective deputy. The deputy then takes the matter up
with representative of the labor complaint department of the
firm."

In February, 1914, representatives of 5,000 workers of the
firm met to celebrate the success of their relationship after
three years of peace. A most enthusiastic reception was
given to Sidney Hillman, Chief Deputy fqr the workers. By
this time, the agreement was recognized as a great achieve-
ment not only by those directly concerned with its operation
but by the public and the press as well.

" No occasion in all Chicago's industrial history," said the
Chicago Daily News, "has more clearly demonstrated how much
more practical and profitable peace is than war, and how much
more essential to peace and prosperity is the democracy of
good will than any kind of oligarchy in industry * * * This
is history in the making here in Chicago."

In the fall of 1914 came the break from the United Gar-
ment Workers and the appearance of the new organization
which later became the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America. Neither this great change in the organization of
the workers, nor the subsequent general strikes of 1915-16
that tied up other clothing houses, affected the agreement of
Hart, S chaff ner and Marx with its organized employees.
Recognizing the facts as they were, the firm continued the
agreement with locals of the Amalgamated Clothing Work- .
ers that it had begun with the United Garment Workers, and
during the general strike in the fall of 1915, the agreement
continued in effect, so that no stoppages occurred among the
workers of Hart, Schaffner and Marx.

68 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

On May Day of 1915, A. D. Marimpietri, head of the
Joint Board of Hart, Schaffner and Marx workers issued a
call to all clothing workers to celebrate May Day as the
International Labor Day. It was the first attempt to do this
and the response was beyond all expectations. Over 10,000
workers paraded through the clothing district, halting out-
side of the unorganized shops. The effect of the whole
demonstration on the unorganized workers was tremendous.
This May Day parade, aided by wide publicity in the daily
press, did much toward laying the foundations for the gen-
tgral strike in the fall of 1915.

The next significant event in the history of the collective
agreement with Hart, Schaffner and Marx came when the
agreement of 1913 was to expire in 1916. The great figure
of the year was Mr. J. E. Williams, Chairman of the Board
of Arbitration, to .whose efforts the renewal of the agree-
ment is credited. Mr. Williams himself called the signing
of the agreement his " crowning experience " as a labor
adjuster. In discussing the character of the union in con-
nection with the renewal of this agreement, Mr. Williams
wrote :

" There were those among the disbelievers in collective bar-
gaining who foresaw the rupture of the Hart, Schaffner and
Marx agreement in this settlement. There were those who be-
lieved that the union, after its five years of solidarity, would
use its power to throttle the company * * * All these ex-
pectations were negatived by the result. Five years of power,
instead of making the union arrogant, has only given it a sense
of restraint and responsibility. It has proved that, guided bj
honest and intelligent leaders, the workers may be trusted with
power, that industrial democracy is not a dream, but a poten-
tial reality."

Not that there were no serious problems at the moment
to complicate the situation; serious questions of wage in-
creases and reductions in hours presented in fact great
difficulty, but the habit of collective bargaining that had been
developed in the course of the previous five years of agree-
ment, together with what Mr. Williams called " The Will to
Agree," prevailed over the difficulties.

DEVELOPMENT OF ARBITRATION 69

The agreement itself was the result of negotiations and
conferences over demands of the union, which included,
among other things, an increase in wages, the 48-hour week,
the continuation of the Trade Board and Board of Arbi-
tration as now constituted, and the preferential shop. Two
weeks before the date for the expiration of the old agree-
ment, the new agreement was signed for another period of
three years, from May 1, 1916, to April 30, 1919. On the
matter of hours a compromise was reached with the estab-
lishment of the 49-hour week. At the date of signing of
the agreement, a 10 per cent, increase was granted, which
the union, instead of applying horizontally, distributed in
such a way as to give the lowest paid workers the greatest
benefit. This action was cited by Mr. Williams as a proof
that the union was highly developed, capable of self-control,
and eminently fit to hold power.

The important provisions of the agreement of 1916 are
substantially the following:

1. The old agreement and decisions based thereon, are to
remain in force unless modified by or conflicting with this agree-
ment.

2. The Board of Arbitration is to have full and final juris-
diction over all matters under this agreement, and decisions of
the Board are to be conclusive. Members of the Board are to
be: Mr. Thompson, Mr. Meyer, and Mr. Williams.

3. The emergency clause of the 1913 agreement is renewed.

4. The Trade Board is to continue as before, as the primary
board for adjusting grievances. The following important addi-
tion was made to the rules for Deputies :

" The Union deputy shall have access to any shop or factory
for the purpose of making investigations of complaints ; but he
shall in all cases be accompanied by the representative of the
employer. Provided that the latter may, at his option, waive
his right to accompany him, also that in minor matters where
convenience or expedition may be served, the union deputy may
call out the shop chairman to obtain information without such
waiver."

5. Shop representatives (or shop chairmen) are specifically
mentioned in the agreement and their duties and powers defined.
The shop chairman is recognized as the duly accredited repre-
sentative of the Joint Board, having charge of complaints and

70 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

organization matters in the shop. He is to receive complaints
and have opportunity to investigate them, he may collect dues,
etc., as long as it does not interfere with shop discipline or
efficiency ; and he must do all in his power to promote good will
and cooperation.

6. Detailed procedure is outlined for the handling, investi-
gation, and presentation of grievances, appeals, and for the
enforcement of decisions.

7. Piece rate committees take up changes in all cases where
changes are contemplated.

8. The preferential shop clause is to remain effective, as
before.

9. The limitations on discharge of workers as provided in
1913 agreement remain in effect.

10. Stoppages are considered serious violations of the spirit
of the agreement.

11. Workers are not to be detained in shops when there is
not enough work.

12. Employes are to be notified of complaints against them
so that they can notify a deputy.

13. Lay off of union workers is only permitted in case of
alternation in slack times, reorganization, or reduction in sec-
tions, lawful discipline, etc.

14. During slack season work is to be divided equally, as
far as possible, among all the workers.

15. Absence without cause or notification is equivalent to
quitting.

16. Workers displaced by abolishment of sections are to bo
replaced in work as much like the old work as possible.

17. Workers absent because of sickness will up to a reason-
able length of time be reinstated.

18. The provisions for preference require that the union
keep its door open to the admission of non-union workers.
Dues and initiation fees must not be prohibitive.

19. All provisions of the old agreement, except where su-
perseded or conflicting with these, are to remain in effect.

From 1916 to 1919, a period of world war and unsettled
economic conditions, the agreement and those who worked
with it were confronted with new and unexpected problems.
Fortunately the law of the industry proved itself elastic
enough to meet such rapidly changing conditions. In Jan-
uary, 1917, 2 per cent, was added to the wages of piece
workers, in addition to the 10 per cent, granted at the time

of signing the agreement. On May 1, 1917, 10 per cent,
increases were granted by decision of the Board and this
time applied horizontally. The following year, on April
22, 1918, the firm granted " voluntary " increases, the result
of negotiations between the union and the firm, effective as
of May 2, 1918, and amounting to 10 per cent and 15 per
cent. Like other gains of the Hart, Schaffner and Marx
workers, these increases were of great help in stimulating
the campaign to organize the rest of the Chicago market,
which still remained non-union.

On January 2, 1919, after seven years of distinguished
and invaluable service, Mr. J. E. Williams, Chairman of
the Board of Arbitration, died. James H. Tufts, Professor
of Philosophy in the University, of Chicago, was appointed
to succeed him.

CHAPTER IV

THE BREAK FROM THE UNITED GARMENT
WORKERS IN 1914

THE conduct and termination of the 1910 strike resulted
in resentment and suspicious hostility of the clothing work-
ers toward their leaders in the United Garment Workers of
America. In order to realize the intensity of their feeling,
and the accumulated sense of injustice that culminated in
the fall of 1914, it is necessary to go further back and ex-
amine briefly the history, the methods, and the various activi-
ties of the clothing workers' organizations prior to the break
in the ranks of the United Garment Workers in 1914.

It is from the first a history of exploitation and of chaos.
It is clear from the nature of the industry itself and the
course of its development, that organization of the clothing-
workers presented a highly complicated problem. The very
conditions that made organization a pressing necessity
tended also to retard its progress as we have seen in the
sweatshop years before the 1910 strike. The immigrant
workers; the highly seasonal nature of the industry; the
prevalence of home work, with all the special problems of
organization involved in that system; the constant division
and sub-division of operations, setting the skilled workers
at a comparative disadvantage; all these helped to make
the clothing industry one of the most difficult of American
industries to organize.

From the beginning many sporadic and ineffective at-
tempts to organize the clothing workers were made by such
unions as the Journeymen Tailors, originally formed as a
benevolent organization only. For the most part these at-
tempts were either too feeble to be effective, or disrupted by
jealousies and dissensions, or undermined by corruption from
within. Of these early organizations the Journeymen Tail-
ors were the most powerful, especially in New York City,

THE BREAK IN 1914 73

where they were supported by the Central Labor Union in
the first general strike in 1833. The first national organ-
ization of tailors, however, did not come until after the
foundation of the Knights of Labor in 1866. It began, as
most unions of that period did, in rebellion against an older
union no longer effective. In 1873 the various locals under
the Knights of Labor joined to form a national organiza-
tion. One of the worst difficulties under which they labored
was the necessity for secrecy, due to the blacklisting and
lockouts in the reaction that followed the Civil War. Partly
for this reason and partly through inherent weaknesses in
the organization, the Knights of Labor were never very
successful in organizing the clothing workers.

The decade of 1880-1890 was filled with uprisings, new
organizations, counter-movements and revolts. Finally in
1891 the United Garment Workers was organized, sup-
ported at the beginning, by the United Hebrew Trades.
The union was organized under the leadership of dissatisfied
officers of the Knights of Labor and took immediate steps
to entrench and safeguard itself by obtaining a charter from
the American Federation of Labor. This step was strongly
opposed by the United Hebrew Trades, which just a little
while before had urged the organization of the United Gar-
ment Workers, and it passed a resolution in 1892 criticising
their action in affiliating with the American Federation of
Labor. In 1893 the new union engineered a strike that de-
veloped into a fight with the Knights of Labor, from which
the United Garment Workers emerged victorious.

This strike was followed by a period of severe depression^
and unemployment, lasting until the beginning of the new
era of inside shops. It was largely in these years, from
1883 to 1894, that the sweat-shop came to be the character-
istic feature of the clothing industry, and became closely
associated in the minds of the workers with the contract
system that prevailed during that period. Beginning with
1894, however, the great inside factories began to spring up.
Their effect was greatly to facilitate the work of organiza-
tion, partly because of the greater accessibility of workers

74 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

through the grouping by sections, and partly because of the
^relative decrease in the number of home workers.

The United Garment Workers reaped the benefits of
these great changes, and soon found itself the most power-
ful of the then existing clothing workers' organizations. The
union comprised three main branches of the garment industry
— overalls, shirts, and " men's and boys' clothing." Early
in their history the United Garment Workers were fairly
i successful in organizing the pants-makers, children's jacket
makers, and especially the overall makers. With the
Brotherhood of Tailors of New York, however, which had
affiliated with the United Garment Workers, but had to a
certain degree retained its independence, the new organiza-
tion got on badly from the beginning. This hostility con-
tinued and grew throughout the history of the United Gar-
ment Workers.

Viewed in the light of all the events up to 1914, and ac-
cording to their own subsequent statements, the hostility
P' and distrust of the tailors were founded principally on the
following grievances: (1) The failure of the United Gar-
ment Workers to organize the tailors, or to support them
in their attempts to organize or increase their membership;
(2) refusal to take notice of the growing demand on the
part of the clothing workers for industrial union-
ism rather than craft unionism; (3) autocratic and
unrepresentative administration of the union's busi-
ness, both constitutionally and unconstitutionally; (4)
{_ corrupt practices existing among the officers of the
United Garment Workers, and the misuse of union
^i ^ funds, particularly in connection with the abuse of the union
label. How far these complaints were justified, the events
themselves show best.

Serious dissatisfaction with the union's policy in regard
to the organization of the tailors was manifested in 1904 at
the close of an unsuccessful strike in New York City. It
was only one of many cases in which the clothing workers
were to find themselves not only unsupported at a crucial

75

moment by their own leaders, but forced to accept unsatis-
factory terms of settlement.

In the meantime there were many proofs of neglect in
regular " peace-time " organization work as well, in the dis-
tress signals sent out by various locals seeking support for
their failing membership. At the convention of 1906, for
example, a Chicago tailors' local reported that its member-
ship had fallen from 450 to 30, and they asked the national
office to help them regain their membership. Another local
reported " a state of loss of confidence, and in some cases
discouraged to a great extent." Another Chicago local re-
ported a drop in membership from 500 to 32, and said that
the only way to organize was " to show outsiders the direct
benefit, moral and financial, it is for them to be organized
— we have nothing to offer." A St. Louis local appealed
for help, reporting that they were " almost out of existence."
Various other locals described similar conditions, but almost
without exception their requests were ignored.

The distrust that had been awakened in the minds of the
workers was further stimulated by the action of the leaders
in the Tailors' first general strike of 1907 in New York.
After the New York Tailors had struck for the right to
organize and for the 53-hour week, there was a split within
the ranks and the United Garment Workers' officials
charged those who persisted in opposing them with in-
surgency, and expelled them from membership, although
fifty thousand members had voted in favor of the so-called
" insurgents." The split was apparently healed, but the
strike was lost. But perhaps the most important single
event that proved to the workers, not only that the national
office was not primarily interested in organizing the clothing
workers, but that it was actually in many cases opposed,
was the Chicago strike of 1910, and its settlement. Presi-
dent Rickert in his report on the 1910 strike to the next
convention shows clearly that the officers were opposed to
the purposes of the strikers. In discussing the rejection
of the first agreement which he had drawn up, and which
provided that " no question of union or open shop or shop

76 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

organization should be submitted to, or passed upon by the
collective machinery established," Rickert says : " in this
they were aided by the English, Foreign and Socialist press
as well as by other organizations, notwithstanding the
fact that these same officials had, prior to the submission of
this proposition, acknowledged many times that any agree-
ment would be a good settlement."

Finally in 1911 the Tailor locals of New York and Balti-
more called a conference at Philadelphia on the subject of
the organization of the tailors, in which they voiced their com-
plaints against the United Garment Workers:

" The National organization of the United Garment Workers
is in existence for the last few years, and we tailors have organ-
ized that body. We helped the organization in its moments
of need, consequently we worked very hard and paid every
cent to set the organization on a solid material basis. At last
we enjoy very little of the benefits of this organization.

" Who will deny the fact that the national organization is
presently being controlled by representatives of the Overall
Makers, who do not want and cannot understand the interests
of the tailor in America?

" Who will deny the fact that the officers of the United Gar-
ment Workers of America are not able to deal with more than
the Union label, and probably not even this? * * * The
Tailor Unions are now like a * step-child ' to the national

organization."

«•

The result of this conference was the formation of the
Tailors' Council which, after bitter opposition, the United
Garment Workers was forced to recognize.

A vigorous organization campaign by the tailor locals of
New York City in 1911-1912 was then undertaken with
astounding results. This new activity marked the taking of
the lead by the tailors themselves toward improving their
conditions and organizing the industry. Finally, when a
general strike was called December 30, 1912, for the 48-hour
week and wage increases, all of the workers in the industry
responded. The organization campaign carried on by the
local unions of the Brotherhood of Tailors in New York
had been so successful that the general officers of the United

Officers and Executive Board Members Bohemian
Coat Makers Local 6

9 f I f > Mf

Officers and Executive Board Members Polish Coat
Makers Local 38

Officers and Executive Board Members Italian Coat
Makers Local 270

Of THt

of niwois

THE BREAK IN 1914 77

Garment Workers, unlike on the occasion of previous strikes,
gave their sanction to the organized fight of the tailors for
better conditions.

From the first the officers of the United Garment Workers
attempted to control the strike and to arrange " settlements "
with the manufacturers. In January they submitted an
agreement which was rejected because it did not reduce
hours and offered only 5 per cent, increase in wages. The
workers refused to vote on a second agreement negotiated
by the national officers for a 52-hour week and an increase
of $1.00 per week. Even when the employers agreed to re-
duce the hours to 50 as of January, 1914, the workers re-
fused to consider it. Finally, on February 28, 1913, the
general executive board of the United Garment Workers
accepted without reference to the strikers another " settle-
ment " with the manufacturers' association. This settlement
provided for an increase of $1.00 per week, the abolition of
sub-contracting and the creation of a commission to fix hours.

When these terms were made public, the Brotherhood of
Tailors rejected the agreement on the ground that it was
entered into without the consent of the strikers. The workers
were so incensed by the treachery of their officers and the
support given the unpopular settlement by the Jewish Daily
Forward when the strike had been virtually won that they
smashed the windows of the Forward offices in protest.

The Brotherhood of Tailors immediately called a confer-
ence of Jewish unions and other progressive organizations
and formed a special committee to carry on the strike. The
sum of $50,000 was raised. The Forward then followed the
popular movement, realized its original error and urged the
strikers on. General President Rickert and the other officers
of the U. G. W. on the other hand wrote to the Mayor of
the city urging him to stop further picketing by the strikers.

The strike was finally terminated on March 13th when a
new settlement negotiated by the newly created strike com-
mittee was ratified by a referendum vote of the strikers.
While the workers did not receive in full their demands, they
secured important concessions in the improvement of work-

78 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

ing conditions. More than that they had laid the foundation
for a permanent organization of all the workers in the cloth-
ing industry in New York City. Effective organization in
New York dates from the 1913 strike. The action of the gen-
eral officers of the U. G. W. in their attempts to force the
workers to settle and their move to stop picketing after the
refusal of the strikers to accept the settlement of February
28th represented only an attempt to do in New York in 1913
the thing which they had tried unsuccessfully in Chicago in
1910. The breach between officialdom and rank and file had
been widened. To the officers of the U. G. W. the growth
of the New York Tailor locals had become a serious menace
to their continuance in power.

The opposition of the United Garment Workers to in-
dustrial unionism and their failure even to understand the
demand was in part another phase of their antagonism to
the tailors. For the demand rose not among the conservative
shirt and over-all workers but among the progressive and
dissatisfied groups of the clothing workers.

The very constitution of the old United Garment Workers
was based on the principle of local autonomy. District
councils were merely loose federations of locals in one city
and were in practice almost powerless. Any local in the
city might, for example, vote for a strike without reference
to or consultation with the district council or other local
unions in the same city, regardless of their interdependence.
The matter would then go directly to the general officers
for their approval or disapproval. Resolutions attempting
to remedy this situation by giving the district councils more
power were always defeated by the General Executive
Board. But the fact that such resolutions were brought in
increasing numbers as the years went on is proof of the
dissatisfaction of the members with the existing system. As
early as 1906 a resolution was submitted providing for the
sanction and recognition of semi-annual conferences between
different locals and district councils, having the power to
legislate for locals represented, subject to the approval of
the General Executive Board. This resolution was de-

THE BREAK IN 1914 79

feated. Many other resolutions of the same purport were
introduced at this and later conventions. One recommended
that all branches of the trade be represented on the executive
board and another recommended the representation of each
principal market. In 1912 a drastic resolution was brought:

" We have resolved, The only means to bring about a power-
ful organization is with an industrial war, which will involve
all occupations affiliated with the U. G. W. And it must ex-
tend wherever the U. G. W. has jurisdiction, and tie up the
entire clothing industry, at such time as the delegates see fit;
and we must have a uniform price for every occupation * * *
We are using old-time methods * * * The garment workers
cannot expect the rest of the tailors of this country to be
organized and to have confidence in it or respect for it unless
it gives some evidence of thought and intelligence and a careful
consideration and genuine intention on this and other important
matters before us demanding solution."

The committee on resolutions recommended that this be
" received and spread on the minutes," which was done.

The utter failure of the United Garment Workers to
understand the demand for industrial unionism was shown
conclusively in the General Executive Board report to the
1914 convention:

" The hue and cry for an industrial form of organization in
the tailoring industry is difficult to understand * * * It is
the opinion of your General Executive Board that this conven-
tion should go on record as flatly opposed to amalgamation in
any form at this time with any of the other organizations in
the clothing trade, and that the incoming general executive
board be empowered to resist any encroachment upon our
jurisdiction by any other union."

The constitution of the United Garment Workers pro-
viding as it did for local autonomy and dependence of the
locals directly on the general officers, lent itself readily to
autocratic control on the part of the officers. A few ex-
amples will show how the extraordinary powers held by the
officers and General Executive Board under the constitution
were misused by them. Foremost among these was the
power to grant charters, which the general officers used so

80 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

as to strengthen their control of the union. Strikes were
referred directly to the general office. No person was
entitled to strike benefits unless he had been a member in
good standing at last three months before the strike was
declared. One article sought to protect the officers from
criticism by providing for trial of members in "cases when
a general officer has been slandered or libelled." Thus effec-
tive criticism was often stifled by fear of expulsion and loss
of a job.

In addition to constitutional powers originally conferred
upon them, thef officers were constantly seeking to strengthen
their hold by bringing in new resolutions. It should be
noted that for years the officers had effectively controlled
the conventions either through the appointment of commit-
tees or through control of the delegates, or through over-
representation of those locals favorable to themselves — and
often by all of these methods. This last expedient was made
possible by the power to grant charters to any number of
locals. The result was the chartering of many numerically
small locals in those districts favorable to the administra-
tion, especially among the overall and shirt workers. Con-
sequently, although their delegates sometimes out-numbered
the delegates of clothing locals for purposes of voting, they
were not actually representative of the majority of the
membership. Thus by one means or another resolutions
brought by officers were generally adopted, while those op-
posing them were unfavorably reported and lost.

One of the most striking resolutions seeking to secure the
power of the officers was brought by Secretary Larger in
1906. He recommended that the general officers be given
power to suspend immediately any local refusing to obey
their orders. This recommendation despite much opposition
was finally carried. Two constitutional amendments as to
discipline were not even voted on by the convention but were
merely concurred in by the Board and subsequently referred
to as " amendments to our by-laws." In 1912 Sidney Hill-
man, then chief deputy for the Hart, Schaffner and Marx
workers, forced a hearing for two delegates whom Rickert

THE BREAK IN 1914 81

attempted to disfranchise under these " by-laws," without
giving them a hearing.

Due to the combined efforts of Rickert and Larger, nine
resolutions for reform elections were reported unfavorably
by the committee. Among these were resolutions for the
secret ballot, for the restoration of the referendum, for the
removal of officers by referendum and other similar reforms.
It should also be noted that in 1912 as in most other years,
Rickert and Larger were elected by acclamation. Never-
theless, strong opposition was already being shown, at that
time, to their administration. Though the constitution
originally provided for a referendum vote, the officers had
tried to abolish it as early as 1906. To quote Rickert, who
claimed to approve of the referendum in theory: " It has
been conclusively demonstrated that in our organization for
the general interest of its progress, the referendum has been
an absolute failure. I would recommend that the consti-
tution be so changed as to give the convention power .to
decide * * * without submitting it to a referendum vote."
This resolution was adopted by vote of 44 to 17.

In opposing these resolutions to restore the referendum,
Rickert, in 1912, said: 'The referendum vote has been a
bar to progress and advancement. I would leave the law
as it is. giving the locals and General Executive Board the
right to submit amendments between conventions, but feel
that all laws adopted at conventions should go into effect
without being submitted to the vote of the people." One
of the measures thus passed was a resolution introduced by
one of the officers raising the salaries of the general officers
and awarding themselves back pay for two years, without
referring this question to the membership.

The abuse of the union label as practised by the officers
of the United Garment Workers is cited in the New York
convention of 1914 as one of the tailors' most serious griev-
ances and a direct cause of the revolt. From the beginning
the United Garment Workers had neglected the organiza-
tion of the tailors to a far greater extent than the organiza-
tion of the overall and shirt workers. The explanation for

82 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

this discrimination is to be found in the fact that, through
the use of the union label, the Garment Workers were able
to control the overall workers more effectively than they
could hope to control the tailors. The sale of union labels
was the great activity of the United Garment Workers and
they naturally found it profitable to devote most of their
energies to organization in those branches' in which the union
label could be most readily used. As a result the union label
was a serious cause of friction between the overall and shirt
workers and the tailors.

In the hands of the officers of the United Garment
Workers, the label, instead of being a safeguard to the
workers as it was intended to be, became a dangerous weapon
whereby large funds were extorted from the membership
and misused, standards lowered, and the workers, either
ignorant of the working of this system or else helpless to
remedy it, were often forced to scab on each other. The
union label became one of the most important sources of
revenue for the officers. The United Garment Workers
were supposed to sell labels to firms that were under agree-
ment as to conditions of work and employed only union mem-
bers. But in practice the granting of labels often amounted
to conspiracy with the employers, some of whom retained
the use of labels without conforming to union standards. In
many cases the tailors knew the conditions of union label
shops to be worse than the conditions in non-label houses.

Such use of the label proved to be profitable, however,
and the officers again and again emphasized the advantages
of the union label and urged their more extended use. Large
sums were spent on labels and label advertising that might
have gone into organization work. In one year, 1906, the
general officers spent approximately $16,656 for organizing,
$13,250 for strike benefits, $24,572 for labels and $10,748
for label advertising and propaganda.

In 1912 President Rickert said that the union label was
" the most effective weapon that can be utilized by the wage
earners of America. Its general demand would in a great
measure bring peace to the labor movement. The exploita-

THE BREAK IN 1914, 83

tion of the laborer would cease and strikes and lockouts
would be minimized * * * the working men and women of
this country do not appreciate the full value of the union
label and hence it becomes necessary to have a large corps
of label promoters in the field."

Often strikes in non-label shops would be given support
by the United Garment Workers, while strikes in label shops
would be betrayed by their own officers who supplied the
employers with scab workers, to whom they had given union
books. The workers for a long time did not dare to voice
their grievance openly for fear of losing their jobs through
the union. Such complaints as were made, to the effect that
the officers were too lenient with firms that misused the
label, were repeatedly ignored. Thus, for instance, many
clothing manufacturers were enabled to retain the use of the
label, despite the protests of the workers, when in reality,
clothes in these shops were made under the worst sweat-
shop conditions.

In 1906 a Chicago local protested against the selling of
the label to special order coatmakers, who were using 50
per cent, non-union helpers, but no action was taken on
this complaint.

In view of their use of the union label, the union officers
naturally considered strikes an unnecessary expense and in-
terruption, and they concerned themselves as little with the
improvement of conditions through strikes as with the work
of organization.

Faced by these abuses and the waning strength of the
organization, both numerically and financially, the progres-
sive members began to organize for resistance. As the time
for the 1914 convention approached, the dissatisfaction of
the workers came to a head and it was apparent to the offi-
cers that it would be difficult for them to retain their power.
The methods used in past conventions they realized would
not be sufficient to stem the tide of indignation that the
tailors' locals were now showing more and more openly.
' There was a general and widespread dissatisfaction among
the membership with the former international administra-

84 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

tors who never acted in accord with the membership * * *.
The membership growing ever stronger and more self-con-
scious, looked forward to the biennial convention as the place
for correcting the different evils they were suffering
from."

Nashville was chosen as the convention city for 1914, pri-
marily because it was convenient for the overall and shirt-
workers and very inconvenient for the clothing workers.
An active campaign was waged by the clothing locals
throughout 1914 against the re-election of the old officers.
The selection of Nashville as the convention city was re-
garded as the first step toward reducing the power of these
opposing locals. A motion to hold the convention in a more
central location (Rochester), which was constitutionally
made by a tailors' local and constitutionally seconded, was
ignored by Secretary Larger and no vote was allowed, al-
though the constitution specifically provided for such refer-
endum. In giving the reason for his refusal to put this
motion to referendum vote, Secretary Larger said that some
of the locals seconding the motion were in arrears, whereas
in fact locals charged with arrears had not yet had their
accounts audited and were therefore supposedly in good
standing. Motions to remove Larger for unconstitutional
behavior were likewise ignored. At the convention Larger
evaded the issue by making it appear that he was charged
with violation of an entirely different clause of the constitu-
tion.

Referendum on a change of the convention city having
been refused, in spite of the financial difficulty for a large
number of eastern locals and in spite of the unconstitu-
tionally of the procedure, the convention was called for
October 12th at Nashville, Tennessee. The call included
the following rulings for representation and credentials:

" Representation in the convention will be based on the aver-
age membership on which local unions paid per capita tax for
the twenty- five months ending August 31st, immediately pre-
ceding the convention. Delegates are not entitled to seats in
the convention unless all the indebtedness of their local union

THE BREAK IN 1914 85

to General Office has been paid in full to August 31, 1914, and
unless the Local Union has paid per capita tax to the Inter-
national Union on all its members. At this convention matters
of the greatest importance to the workers will be discussed and
acted on, and every effort will be made to broaden the field and
means for the organization of the yet unorganized workers in
the clothing industry. Therefore, the importance of our move-
ment, the duty to the present and for the future, demand that
every local union entitled to representation shall send its full
quota of delegates to the Nashville convention, October 12,
1914."

But the officers of the United Garment Workers knew
that they would have to take even more drastic steps to hold
their own against the rising opposition of the clothing dele-
gates. Having already violated the constitution by refusing
to submit the motion to convene in Rochester to referendum
vote, they proceeded to disfranchise the majority of the
opposing locals' delegates. In August, just before the elec-
tion of local delegates, General Auditor Haskins was sent
out to audit the books of the locals. He reported large in-
debtedness against those locals known to be in opposition
to the officers of the United Garment Workers and declared
them to be in arrears. On September 12th a circular letter
was sent to all the locals thus charged with arrears, telling
them that no credentials would be issued to delegates of
locals whose bills were not paid. The letter rested this policy
on the following clause in the Constitution :

" Section 10 of Article III of our International Constitu-
tion reads as follows:

" No Local Union shall be entitled to representation at the
biennial convention unless the per capita tax and assessments
are paid up to the first day of September preceding the con-
vention. Your Local Union owes $ per Auditor
Haskins' statement, which is herewith attached. Immediately
on payment of the amount due as above stated, this office will
forward credentials to your Local Union. The Local Union
failing to pay its indebtedness, will receive no credentials and
will not be entitled to representation at the coming convention."

The bills in most cases were declared by the locals to be
fabricated for the purpose of disfranchising the local, and

86 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

in many cases were ridiculously large. The amount charged
the New York local alone was $75,000. On September 28th
a second letter was sent to these locals, threatening them
with non-representation unless they paid at once. In both
letters the officers claimed to be acting as required by the
constitution. In reality, however, the letters and the whole
proceeding were in violation of the constitution and the rights
of the local unions concerned. According to the constitu-
tion, the representation of locals was to be based on the aver-
age membership on which local unions had paid the per
capita tax for the twenty-four months immediately pre-
ceding the convention, no local union having more than four
delegates. The delegates were not entitled to seats unless
all the indebtedness of their local unions to the General Office
had been paid in full up to August 31, 1914, and unless the
local union had paid the per capita tax to the General Office.
The locals charged with arrears, however, were not in ar-
rears as provided by the constitution, inasmuch as they had
paid the per capita tax for the twenty-four months ending
August 31st, as well as the assessments called for, and had
elected delegates in proportion to the membership on which
they had paid the tax. Even if this had not been the case,
however, another clause in the Constitution provided that any
union three months in arrears shall be allowed until the
seventh day of the fourth month, and if not then paid, shall
be suspended, and also that the General Secretary shall
notify the local when two months in arrears. None of the
locals charged had been so notified by the Secretary or sus-
pended for non-payment. The indebtedness reported by
Haskins was in fact new, and the locals had never previously
been informed of it. All were constitutionally, therefore, in
good standing and " their standing was in no way impaired
by the claim, made at the last hour, that they were indebted
to the organization for per capita taxes or assessments in
addition to those regularly paid by them from month to
month."

The locals claimed, moreover, that even if the indebted-
ness reported had been correct, they were not given suffi-

Chicago members of the General Executive Board

A. D. Marimpietri . T . Frank Rosenblum

o-i T>- Samuel Levin 0^1 011

Sidney Rissman Stephen Skala

THE BREAK IN 1914 87

cient time to pay. They pointed out that the constitution
provided for certain contingencies, such as unemployment,
that might excuse delay. In this event, therefore, the issue
would be one of the facts in the case. It was the duty of
the officers to ascertain the facts, to ask the local to prove
the existence of the extenuating circumstances, and to require
it to appear in its own defense. But no opportunity for a
hearing was given the locals, either to protest their indebted-
ness or to prove the existence of these circumstances. The
letters arbitrarily assumed the facts:

" We desire herewith to notify you of that fact, [that all
local unions in question are not entitled to representation * * *
and will not be seated], so that if your Local Union is unable
to pay up, you will know that your delegates cannot be seated."

Finally, the constitution provides that a Committee of
Credentials shall pass on the right of delegates to sit, and
the clothing workers held that it was therefore both uncon-
stitutional and autocratic for the Executive Board and
officers to take it upon themselves to decide the facts, and to
act upon their own decision. It was plain to the delegates
that it was the purpose of the national officers to disfranchise
the locals they feared in whatever way they found possible.

The Convention opened Monday morning, October 12,
in Capitol Hall, Nashville, Tenn. The New York delegates,
the great majority of whom represented locals declared in
arrears, circulated a printed appeal to the delegates stating
their case and urging that they be admitted to the conven-
tion.

" A determined effort is now being made by the General
Officers of our organization to prevent the delegates of our
locals from being seated at the Convention. And with that
end in view, the General Officers have presented to the locals
enormous bills for alleged deficiencies.

" Whether or not these bills are correct is not the question
before you at the present time. In most instances our locals
claim that they are incorrect. This question must be adjusted
through the regular channels of administrative procedure. If
our locals should be found to be indebted to the United Garment
Workers they will pay such indebtedness with all possible expe-

88 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

(lit ion, and if they should fail to pay, the United Garment
Workers will have a constitutional remedy against them. The
point we wish to make is that the question is entirely foreign to
the right of our local to be represented in the convention."

When the Convention opened on October 12, 1914, the
Credential Committee, appointed by Rickert, submitted a
partial report, recommending the seating of 198 of 305 dele-
gates, and making no reference at all to the others, who rep-
resented clothing locals in opposition to the existing admin-
istration. The meeting was about to proceed to business
when Frank Rosenblum, one of the Chicago delegates who
had been seated, asked if the report of the Credential Com-
mittee was complete. The President said that it was not yet
complete and the session was adjourned without further
action. Consequently, when the meeting convened the next
morning, it was not yet legally organized. All delegates
therefore had a right to be regarded as equal and having the
same powers, until the convention was definitely constituted
by the adoption of the complete report of the Credential
Committee. From the very beginning, however, the dele-
gates, whose status was not yet reported by the Committee,
were refused admittance and were physically barred from
the floor of the convention hall. About 150 of them (repre-
senting cutters' and tailors' locals) were thus illegally re-
fused admittance, and they were only allowed to sit in the
gallery. President Rickert was about to proceed with busi-
ness when Frank Rosenblum raised the point of order on the
organization of the convention and asked for a vote. The
motion was put to vote, but Rickert, in counting, ignored the
votes of the delegates in the gallery and reported the motion
as " lost."

Delegate Rosenblum then immediately proposed the sus-
pension of the roll call, as it was unconstitutional to proceed
to other business until the Credential Committee had com-
pleted its report. This objection was cheered and applauded
with great enthusiasm by the delegates in the gallery. Rick-
ert overruled Delegate Rosenblum's point of order on the
ground that business would be delayed too long if they were

THE BREAK IN 1914 89

to wait for a full report. Delegate Rosenblum appealed
from the ruling and delivered a speech denouncing the auto-
cratic methods of the officers and declaring that the delegates
in the gallery were legally elected representatives of the
workers with as much right as any, and more than some pres-
ent, to a vote. He accused the officers of using unconstitu-
tional and dishonest methods to maintain their position, be-
cause they knew that an honest vote would repudiate them.
The appeal was put to a vote, and the majority voted in favor
of the objection, but Rickert again refused to count the votes
of the delegates in the gallery and declared the motion lost.
Another motion made by Delegate Rosenblum to add the
names of these delegates to the report was voted on with the
same result, Rickert refusing to recognize all votes.

Delegate Rissman, of Chicago, then moved that " the
president be removed for having violated the constitution,
and that in his place be nominated, temporarily, Brother
Schneid of Chicago." Rickert refused to put the motion to
a vote, and Delegate Rissman, therefore, put the motion
himself, counted it, and declared it carried. Delegate Pass
then moved that since the majority had captured the conven-
tion, the regular convention representing the majority should
adjourn and reconvene at the Duncan Hotel. He also put
the motion, counted the votes, and announced it carried.

Thereupon all the delegates, whom the general officers
sought to keep out of the convention, without charges, with-
out a hearing and without a trial, and who represented the
great majority of the membership, left the building in a body,
joined by the few clothing-workers' delegates who had been
seated. The overall workers' delegates were practically the
only ones remaining. The delegates left the building and
marched through the streets to reconvene at Duncan Hotel.

90 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

The following call was immediately issued to all delegates :

"TO THE DULY ELECTED DELEGATES OF LOCALS
OF THE UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA TO THE 18TH BIENNIAL CONVEN-
TION HELD IN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE,
GREETINGS:

" The Convention of the United Garment Workers of America
will be held this 13th day of October, 1914, at the Duncan
Hotel, in the City of Nashville, State of Tennessee, at 12 noon.

" The reason why the location of the Convention is changed
from the Capitol Hall to the Hall in the Duncan Hotel, corner
Fourth Avenue and Cedar Street, is that the meeting place
originally designated, for the holding of such Convention, has
been seized by a minority of the delegates duly elected to the
said 18th Biennial Convention by the locals constituting the
United Garment Workers of America, and said place being
improperly, illegally and by force, held by said minority, as an
illegal and improperly constituted Convention of the United
Garment Workers of America.

" And we urge all accredited delegates to the said 18th Bien-
nial Convention to attend the meetings of the Convention at the
time above given, and at the place above stated."

The first session of the Clothing Workers' Convention at
noon of October 13th was attended by practically all the
clothing workers' delegates. Mr. Jacob Panken, of New
York, addressed the convention and was most enthusiasti-
cally received. A Credential Committee and a few tempo-
rary officers were elected, and the meeting then adjourned.
The Convention was called to order in the afternoon by
Chairman Schneid and the roll call taken. The Chair an-
nounced that all officers were absent, including General
President Rickert, General Secretary Larger, General
Treasurer Waxman, General Auditor Haskins, though they
have all been notified to appear. Committees were then ap-
pointed and the convention proceeded to regular business
and reports. On Wednesday, October 14th, the convention
proceeded to the election of permanent officers amid great
excitement and enthusiasm. Sidney Hillman, of Local No.
39, Chicago, was unanimously elected General President of
the United Garment Workers of America, Joseph Schloss-

Joseph Schlossberg, General Secretary-Treasurer

till M0A4HJ

THE BREAK IN 1914 91

berg, of Local No. 156, New York, was unanimously elected
General Secretary and Tobias Lapun, of New York, was
elected General Treasurer, while Isidor Kantrowitz, of New
York, was elected General Auditor. Rosenblum, Marim-
pietri, Rabkin, and Seinfield of the Overall Workers, were
elected members of the General Executive Board. Dele-
gates to represent the United Garment Workers at the Con-
vention of the American Federation of Labor were also
elected. The convention was continued in the afternoon at
407 Union Street, and the officers were officially installed.
Other business was disposed of or referred to the General
Executive Board. The next convention was set for 1916 in
Rochester, New York.

The organization that emerged from the Nashville Con-
vention was in reality the nucleus of the Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America. The name, United Garment
Workers of America, was retained until December, 1914.

Under the leadership of the new general officers elected
at the Convention, the United Garment Workers proceeded
to take up the fight against the old officers of the United Gar-
ment Workers and to fulfill its promises to the membership.
Tailor locals in all the markets were in the meantime endors-
ing the action of their delegates. On October 21st, the
Chicago locals assembled in a great mass meeting and rati-
fied the action of their delegates at Nashville in the following
resolution :

" WHEREAS, At the Eighteenth Biennial Convention of the
United Garment Workers of America held in Nashville, Tenn.,
on October 12, 1914, the credential committee reported ad-
versely upon seating delegates representing seventy-five per cent.
of the membership of the United Garment Workers of America,
and

" WHEREAS, Every possible effort was made to secure a hear-
ing and explanation was demanded for such high handed
methods but the delegates representing only twenty-five per
cent, of the membership in the hands of the present officers of
the United Garment Workers of America, in conjunction with
one Robert Noren, Secretary of the Overall Manufacturers'
Association and delegates who were absolutely not eligible to
be seated, denied such hearing and explanation, and

92 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

" WHEREAS, These proceedings were the most vicious and
unwarranted denial of the Constitutional law of the United
Garment Workers of America, and a blot on the good name of
Organized Labor and a disgrace to the Labor Movement of
America, and

"WHEREAS, The delegates representing the seventy-five per
cent, of the membership of the United Garment Workers of
America felt it incumbent upon them to safeguard and protect
the interests of those whom they represented, proceeded to or-
ganize the Convention of United Garment Workers of America
under constitution and by-laws of said organization, said con-
vention was held in the Duncan Hotel and transacted all the
business pertaining to the United Garment Workers of America,
and elected a full set of general officers for the ensuing term,
now, therefore be it,

" RESOLVED, That we, the membership of the Chicago Locals
in mass meeting assembled, October 21, 1914, in the West Side
Auditorium, heartily ratify the action taken by our delegates
to protect and safeguard our organization and hereby pledge
our undivided support to our newly elected officers."

The old United Garment Workers' officers put up a bitter
fight. On October 31st, a letter was sent out to all the locals
by Larger describing the Convention and informing them of
the status of the new organization in the eyes of the old
General Officers:

" The convention held at the Duncan Hotel by the bolters,
have taken the name of the New United Garment Workers of
America. They have brought suit against the legally elected
officers for possession of the national office, therefore we wish
to advise you to pay no attention to any communication or
order unless said order or communication is signed by B. A.
Larger, General Secretary and on the letterhead of Interna-
tional Office, until further notice. Our offices are in 116-117-
118-120-122-124 Bible House, New York City, and checks in
payment of labels and per capita tax MUST be made payable
to B. A. Larger, General Secretary, as heretofore. Send no
checks to anyone else and recognize no label secretary except
those authorized by us to act in that capacity. Recognize no
local union or member except those who are loyal and in good
standing in this organization."

In the meantime legal action, both defensive and offensive,
was taken by the new organization, and a report on their

THE BREAK IN 1914 93

progress was made to the Special New York Convention.

In November the American Federation of Labor held its
regular Convention. To it both organizations elected and
sent delegates, each claiming to be the legitimate organiza-
tion of the clothing workers. A complete and detailed report
of the entire situation was printed by the new United Gar-
ment Workers and circulated among the delegates under
the title, "The Case of the United Garment Workers of
America." This report, signed by President Hillman and
Secretary Schlossberg, was designed to put all the facts
clearly before the American Federation of Labor. The
American Federation of Labor, however, refused even to
give the organizatioo__ajiearing. The delegates of the
Rickert faction were recognized and seated because Rickert
and Larger were the only Garment Workers' officers offi-
cially known to the American Federation of Labor. On
November 16th, President Gompers and Secretary Morrison
sent out a circular letter to the clothing workers' locals in-
forming them that the United Garment Workers was
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and that
Rickert and Larger were its officers.

In December, 1914, the General Executive Board of the
new United Garment Workers sent out a call to all district
and local unions for a special convention to be held in New
York, beginning December 25, 1914. The purpose of this
convention was to begin the constructive work of removing

" the antiquated and undemocratic forms and methods of our
organization, as laid out by our present constitution; establish
such organic laws as will insure to the Membership a deter-
mining voice in the affairs of our organization * * * not
only at a time of a great crisis, when the Membership rises
from under the heel of despotism, but at all times. In short
the laws and institutions of our organization must be so changed
as to permit of the freest and fullest expression of the truly pro-
gressive spirit of our Membership, and enable it to march
unfettered abreast of the Modern Labor Movement."

The report of the general executive board to this con-
vention included a summary of their activities during the
first few months of their progress in the long-neglected work

94 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

of organization, and a re-statement of the principles and
purposes of the organization. At this convention the Gen-
eral Officers elected at the Nashville Convention were con-
firmed. Their activities were endorsed by the delegates.
The Convention proceeded to the drafting and adoption of
a new constitution suited to the real purposes of the Union.
It was at this Convention also that the name of the union
was chosen. An agreement with the Tailors' Industrial
Union, formerly the Journeymen Tailors' Union, providing
for their amalgamation with the new clothing workers'
union, was submitted by the General Executive Board to
the Convention and was adopted. The agreement was as
follows :

" First : This organization shall be known as the Amalga-
Workers _pf America.

_

" Second : Theofficers shall consisT of : General President,
General Secretary, General Treasurer, General Auditor, and
eleven General Executive Board Members, three of whom must
be from the TailorsMndustrial Union.

" Third : The General Executive Board shall organize the
industry into departments when conditions warrant. Such
department shall have full control of its own funds and shall
have the right to make such laws to govern its department as
it sees fit, providing such laws do not conflict with the general
laws.

" Fourth : Per capita tax payable to the general office shall
not be less than fifteen cents per month for each member in good
standing.

" Fifth : Method of election of general officers to be left
until after amalgamation, then for the general membership to
decide by referendum."

With the ratification of this agreement and of the new
constitution, the clothing workers were finally freed from
the bonds of an unrepresentative and outworn organization.
The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America had now
become a reality in name as well as in fact, and under new
leadership made its formal entry into the American Labor
Movement.

CHAPTER V
THE STRIKE OF 1915

THE settlement with Hart, Schaffner and Marx in 1911
left the rest of the Chicago clothing market unorganized.
From then until the final victory in 1919 vigorous and con-
tinued effort was made by the Chicago clothing workers'
union to organize the unorganized shops. For those who
returned to work in 1911 under non-union conditions, the
outcome of the 1910 strike was not a defeat but merely an
interruption in this long battle that was to last eight years.
From time to time, organization activity was carried on
with increased energy. In 1913, for example, a vigorous
organization campaign that had its fruits was conducted by
the Chicago union. But the real beginning of the cam-
paign came in 1915, after the break from the United Gar-
ment Workers, with the initiation by the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America of a new and more vigorous
policy of organization throughout the whole country.

Long before the crisis of 1915 was precipitated, the non-
union employers in the clothing industry used old and tried
methods in combatting organization campaigns of the union.
The system of blacklisting, which had for so long been
popular in the Chicago clothing industry, was conducted in
the Medinah Temple as before. People who were known
to have joined the Union could not in any circumstances get
jobs. One worker testifies as follows:

" I worked for Stein, Bloch & Co., Rochester, New York, and
as a union man answered the call of a general strike in that city
for the eight-hour day.

" Eleven months later, the strike still on in Rochester, I came
to Chicago and had only worked four weeks when a general
strike was called there which was soon lost, and from that time
to the present the workers have been beaten and the Employers'
Association has been in the saddle.

" After the strike was lost, I applied to different firms for a

96 > CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

position as cutter and was told by each ' go to the Medinah
Temple and if you get a ticket come back and see us.'

" Rosenwald of Rosenwald and Weil told me to go over, get
a ticket and come back to work. I went to the Medinah
Temple and told them I had a job waiting. I was rebuked for
not coming there first, told that Rosenwald nor anyone else
could hire help without consulting the Medinah agency, given
the third degree, then told there were several ahead of me who
were more deserving, and anyway they had to investigate.

" I didn't get the job at Rosenwald but Martin J. Isaacs,
real head of the Association, told me they had received word
^ from Rochester that I had gone out there on a strike and he
said he didn't think I had been punished enough and he would
not have me in any of their houses. I appealed to him in the
name of my wife and baby and he said I should have thought
of them before I went out on strike."

As early as March, April and May, 1915, workers were
discharged for joining the Union and in some cases shops
were struck in protest against such discharges. This gen-
eral condition continued until August, 1915, when, at the
meeting of the General Executive Board of the Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers in Baltimore, it was decided to
initiate a country wide campaign of organization with the
purpose of organizing those sections of the industry that
still remained unorganized. Of these non-union sections,
Chicago was of course one of the most important.

On September 14, 1915, the organization campaign in
Chicago was formally opened by a mass meeting of almost
5,000 clothing workers. At this meeting the demands on the
non-union manufacturers were drawn up and an ultimatum
issued by the union that these demands must be conceded
by September 27th or their employees would be called out
on a general strike. On September 16, 1915, the following
demands were submitted to the non-union clothing manu-
facturers :

1. Forty-eight (48) hours shall constitute a week's work,
which shall be divided as follows: Eight and three-quarters
hours each week day, except Saturday, and on Saturday four
and one-half hours ending at 12 o'clock noon.

2. No employee shall be required to work on a legal holiday

William A. Cunnea

Bessie Abramowitz
(Mrs. Sidney Hillman)

Jacob S. Potofsky,
Assistant General Secretary-Treasurer

rut

Of IHt

THE STRIKE OF 1915 97

and no deduction shall be made from the pay of week workers
for such holidays.

3. All overtime shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half.

4. An increase of 25 per cent, in all wages and earnings.

5. During slack and dull seasons, work shall be distributed
as equally as possible among all the workers.

6. Recognition of the Union, so that collective bargaining
may be established and maintained in the industry. ••

7. No employee shall be discharged without cause and all
fining systems shall be abolished, as well as all blacklisting
agencies and sub-contracting in the shops.

8. Suitable arbitration machinery shall be established for
the adjustment of future complaints.

9. The minimum scale of wages for week workers shall be as
follows :

Cutters, $26 a week.

Trimmers, $20 a week.

Examiners and Bushelmen, $20 a week.

Apprentices, $8 a week.

10. Suitable provision shall be made for apprentices.

11. Any contract entered into shall apply to all contractors
for whose faithful observance thereof the manufacturers shall
be responsible."

These demands of the union the clothing manufacturers
met with their customary contempt. Martin J. Isaacs, at-
torney for the Wholesale Clothiers' Association, character-
ized the demands as an attempt to create unrest among the
working classes.

" I would not dignify the request for arbitration of differ-
ences," he said, " by admitting there is anything to arbitrate.
Conditions are excellent in our factories, the wages are all that
are desired and the workers are satisfied and willing to stay at
their posts if only they are left alone. If, however, labor
agents keep haranguing them on the theory that they are not
well treated and publicity is given to such a campaign, then
the workers may become convinced that they are entitled to
something better and walk out.

" In case there is a strike, the employees simply will have to
return to work under the old conditions, because we will, not
recognize the organization making the demands nor any of its
officials. We know that the great majority of the employees do
not believe in the Union or its leaders. The employers refuse
to be frightened. They do not take strike threats seriously."

98 I CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

>

This, in substance, was the attitude of the great bulk of
the manufacturers. The workers, however, thought differ-
ently about the matter. Even before the date of the ulti-
matum had expired shop strikes were occurring throughout
the city and both the national and local officers of the organi-
zation used every possible effort to keep the workers in the
shop until a strike was found unavoidable.

It soon became clear that the manufacturers would refuse
to negotiate with the union or to submit the union's demands
to arbitration. Even before September 27th they had
already requested police protection for their factories, and,
as in all past strikes in Chicago, the police responded. Chief
Healy announced that " parades and demonstrations of the
strikers will be prevented. Captains have received orders
to halt any street speeches or large gatherings. Details of
patrolmen and mounted police will be stationed in the im-
mediate vicinity of all clothing houses. The manufacturers
will be given the same police protection that any individual
or business house merits. Though I do not expect any out-
burst, I am not taking any chances." At the same time
President Hillman announced: " There will be no violence.
Even picketing of the shops will not be undertaken. Our
union is strong enough not to require this move. The leaders
of each shop have been given orders to walk out quietly.
The same day the strike began we called out four thousand
workers from the shops of Royal Tailors, Lamm & Co.,
Fred Kaufman and Alfred Decker & Cohn." Together with
the strike call President Hillman made the following state-
ment:

" The clothing manufacturers have been given ample oppor-
tunity to settle this controversy amicably and have denied our
request for a conference. Instead of meeting us in a spirit
of co-operation to work out an agreement such as is now in
force in the largest clothing establishment in the city they have,
through their paid agents, sought to ridicule our efforts and
belittle our organization. Organized in strong associations
and speaking as a unit through a chosen representative, the
clothing manufacturers have denied to their workers the priv-
ilege which they claim and exercise for themselves.

99

" We have been forced into this fight by the uncompromising
attitude of our employers and we are in it to stay until the
clothing workers are accorded a voice in fixing their wages and
working conditions. We are willing to rest the justice of our
position with the public or submit to any fair board of arbitra-
tion. The employers refuse to arbitrate so the workers are
compelled to fight."

By September 29th the fight was on and 25,000 men and
women were on strike. The police continued their anti-union
activities. President Hillman announced in the Chicago
newspapers that a captain of police was seen in Mr. Isaacs'
office on Wednesday afternoon. " I presume he went there
to receive his instructions. The clothing manufacturers have
refused to meet us or to arbitrate our claims and they evi-
dently expect to crush us through the Police Department.
I issued instructions to our people to observe the law and
from all the reports I have received they have kept within
their rights as law abiding citizens. In spite of that, mounted
policemen have run their horses on to the sidewalks among
our women and girls, motorcycle policemen have clubbed
our girls and have committed acts of brutality that are a
disgrace. One of our men was shot by an employer, and
from the statements of eye witnesses the attack was entirely
unprovoked and uncalled for." Miss Mary McDermott,
an investigator for Mrs. Louise Osborne Howe of the Public
Welfare Department, made an investigation of alleged
police attacks during the day and reported numbers of cases
in which men and women had been roughly handled by the
police. The tactics of the police had become so vicious that
President Hillman led a delegation including John Fitz-
patrick, Edward Nockels, Mary McDowell, Agnes Nestor,
Victor Olander, Ellen Gates Starr, St. John Tucker and
Luke Grant to present the case of the strikers to Mayor
Thompson. The Mayor was " too busy " to see the dele-
gation, but his secretary told Mr. Hillman that the Mayor
had sent word to Chief Healy " to stop the unnecessary in-
terference on the part of the police. The Mayor told the
Chief to keep the police neutral."

Police brutality did not, however, cease with this promise

100 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

of neutrality by the Mayor and at the beginning of October
Alderman John C. Kennedy decided to present to the City
Council evidence of the police activities and to demand an
investigation. An investigating committee was appointed
under the chairmanship of Alderman Henry Utpatel. At
the hearings of this committee President Hillman, John
Fitzpatrick and Edward INT. Nockels of the Chicago Federa-
tion of Labor, all announced the willingness of the workers
to arbitrate their differences with the employers, but the
employers were obdurate. Martin J. Isaacs, their attorney,
had already refused to confer with Attorney Jacob G. Gross-
berg of the State Board of Arbitration concerning mediation
in the strike. Finally the employers declined to meet the
committee of the City Council. A letter from the Presi-
dents of the National Wholesale Tailors' Association and
of the Wholesale Clothiers' Association stated " that only a
comparatively small number of employees were not work-
ing and these on account of fear of intimidation and
violence." ' The present trouble," the letter stated, " was
due to interference of professional agitators from an outside
market. The prices paid to workers and the hours of work
in the houses of these associations, according to available
statistics, are better than in any competitive market." " The
employers stand firmly for the open shop principle," said
Mr. William M. Cahn. " In any pleadings they may have
with the Aldermen they will not discuss the question of
arbitration, mediation or compromise. We intend to main-
tain the open shop."

Finally, on October 16, 1915, the representatives of the
clothing manufacturers met the aldermanic committee in
the office of Acting-Mayor William R. Morehouse and in-
formed him and the Alderman that they were not interested
in proposals for arbitration.

The efforts to obtain a peaceful settlement of the strike
were still continued, however, not only by the union but
by disinterested and sympathetic citizens of Chicago. Six-
teen prominent Chicago women including Grace Abbott,
Mary McDowell, Mrs. Medill McCormick, Ellen Gates

THE STRIKE OF 1915 101

Starr, and Sophonisba Breckenridge wrote to the Mayor in
an attempt to enlist his support toward arbitrating the strike.

" It has been shown," they wrote, " that in spite of the fact
that Chief Healy's orders to the police were to avoid all un-
necessary violence, one girl was beaten so severely that her
breast bone was fractured; others have been hit on the head
and body so that they carried the marks for days. Still other
strikers have been seriously injured by private detectives in the
employ of the manufacturers in the presence of the police with-
out interference on the part of the latter. The affidavits as to
these instances have been presented to the City Council and are
a matter of record. The trials are called for next week.

" The strikers repeatedly have stated through their agent,
Mr. Hillman, that they will go back to work and submit their
demands to arbitration the moment the manufacturers agree to
do so. The manufacturers, on the other hand, have not only
refused to make any statement of their position to members of
this Committee but have even refused to appear before the Com-
mittee of Aldermen appointed by the City Council to investigate
the strike, merely sending a representative to say that, as they
could not be legally compelled to appear, they decline to do so.

" In view of these facts, and in view of the magnificent record
made by Chicago through you in the last six months in this
matter of a peaceful settlement of industrial disputes, we earn-
estly urge you to take whatever steps may be possible to settle
the present one, and, by signing the Council order to Chief
Healy, by offering yourself as an arbitrator, or by any other
means that may seem to you advisable, prevent our relapse into
the old evil days of labor wars, days which we had hoped after
your success in handling the great strikes of the early summer
were gone forever."

The Mayor found, however, that he could not accede to this
request.

The strike continued. The strikers marched in monster
parades. The Council Committee on Police adopted a re-
port, drawn up by Alderman Buck, censuring the Police
Department for considering strikers at any time its natural
enemies. Acting Chief of Police Schuettler agreed to the
immediate removal of special policemen from clothing fac-
tories affected by the strike. On October 26th Samuel Kap-
per, one of the strikers, was shot and killed and a large num-
ber of others wounded in a riot at Harrison and Halsted

102 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

streets. More than ten thousand striking garment workers
paid their tribute at the funeral to this hero of the strike.

Attempts to arbitrate were again made. A committee
of business men and social workers, headed by Miss Jane
Addams, decided to make a last plea to the Mayor. The
committee appeared before Mayor Thompson and asked him
to become chairman of an arbitration board to settle the
strike. " We thought," said Miss Addams, " that if you
could be induced to take a hand in the matter we would be
able to bring some sort of order out of chaos." The Mayor,
however, still remained obdurate. ' The Mayor of the city
of Chicago," he said, " will not go into this because there is
violence and as the Mayor of the city of Chicago, he will stay
out of it because there is violence." In the same way ended
all attempts to enlist the support of the Mayor of the city
of Chicago.

The strike of 1915 was significant for the many features
that characterized it. The most important of these was the
attitude of the police toward the strikers and the efforts of
the Aldermen Buck, Kennedy and Rodriguez to make public
the effects of police mismanagement and to remedy the situa-
tion. The Aldermanic hearings on the activities of the
police uncovered practices that had never been suspected by
the citizens of Chicago. First Deputy Schuettler admitted
at the public hearing that the police department employed
spies and secret agents. ' There are agents of the police
department," he said, " who give us information and have
done so for years. I defy this committee to compel me to
reveal their names. I will resign my position sooner than
do it." The assistant corporation counsel advised the police
department that it need not give the information to the
committee. Alderman Buck, in a splendid fight against this
autocratic use of a public police department, said : " I for
one want to know whether there are secret agents of the
police attending these meetings and why they are doing it.
The same argument was made when the question of the
police * squeal ' book being exposed was discussed. In my

Samuel Kapper, Killed in 1915 Strike

THk

Of THt

THE STRIKE OF 1915 103

opinion this secrecy about the inside workings of the police
department is all bunk." A similar attack was made by
Buck and his associates in the council against the use of
special police during the strike and a resolution was adopted
calling for their removal from the sidewalks in front of or
in the vicinity of plants affected by the strike. The vigor
and persistence of the council investigation into police
methods during the strike had a permanent and useful influ-
ence in that it focussed public attention on police abuses,
which had developed in secrecy and of which the public was
ignorant.

The strike of 1915, like all strikes of the Chicago cloth-
ing workers, enlisted to an unusual degree the support of
public-spirited citizens. Nor did their support consist only
in offering advice and in lending moral succor. They stood
day after day on the picket line; marched in. the union
parades ; distributed circulars ; raised money for the strikers ;
carried on campaigns to force arbitration and peaceful ad-
justment of the issues that had precipitated the strike, and
in every way contributed toward the support of the strikers
and toward presenting the facts of the fight to the public.
The value of the services of such women during the strike
as Ellen Gates Starr, Mrs. Raymond Robins, Jane Addams,
Amelia Sears, Mrs. Lillie, Mrs. John Furie, Grace Abbott,
and others, was incalculable. Without almost a single im-
portant exception the sympathy of the public leaned to the
side of the workers and had its effect in weakening and un-
dermining the morale of obstinate employers. The weight
of public opinion, indefinable and hard to estimate, neverthe-
less had in the long run its influence.

Organized labor, likewise, in Chicago did not refuse to
share its responsibility in the strike. As in 1910, John Fitz-
patrick and Ed Nockels stood in every way behind the
strikers. When, in the course of the strike, the American
Federation of Labor and United Garment Workers issues
were raised, for the purpose of diverting everyone's atten-
tion from the real issues, both Fitzpatrick and Nockels
unequivocally and emphatically urged the support of the

104 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

members of the Amalgamated. The attack by Nockels and
Fitzpatrick on Martin J. Isaacs, the manufacturers' attorney
and director of the blacklisting bureau in the Medinah
Temple, left no doubt as to where they stood. " He has
sweated and gouged garment workers," said Fitzpatrick,
" and brow-beaten customers, has always been victorious and
able to turn to his employers with a smile and say ' I have
delivered you again.' '

Throughout the strike public intervention had been a dis-
mal failure. Attempts to force mediation or arbitration of
differences, urged by club women, Jane Addams, the State
Board of Mediation, the Aldermanic Committee and sup-
ported by Hillman and his associates, were every time re-
jected by the employers and greeted by specious and evasive
statements from Mayor Thompson. The strikers were will-
ing to arbitrate; newspapers urged public mediation; all
classes of citizens proposed plan after plan for peaceful ad-
justment. But employers and city authorities alone re-
mained adamant.

So the strike had to go on. On December 12, 1915, the
strike was called off. It was not lost. Workers returned to
their shops not as unorganized men and women but as mem-
bers of the union. Although the union was not recognized,
the employers were forced by the strength of the organization
to make important concessions to those who had returned to
work. The stopping of the strike was only a breathing spell
in the struggle for organization. In 1916 the fight broke out
in a city- wide strike of the cutters. This likewise did not
end in formal recognition ; but cutters returned to the shops,
receiving advantages which could only come to those whose
strength was realized by the employers. Recognition was
now only a question of time; and it came in 1919.

The strike of 1915 was from the employers' angle a futile
engagement. It was an expensive postponement of the day
of peace and recognition. Through it all one wise and ex-
perienced observer of industrial strife and peace, watched
the proceedings and recorded his observations. At the time

15,000 Striking Chicago Clothing Workers on Parade October 12, 1915

Of THt

OF fLLlMOIS

THE STRIKE OF 1915 105

they had no more than an indirect influence. In retrospect,
however, the following comments from the pen of J. E. Wil-
liams, then Chairman of the Board of Arbitration in Hart,
Schaffner and Marx, lend a significance to the events of
1915 which a bare recital of its incidents cannot yield:

" In the Trenches,

" Chicago, Nov. 19, 1915.

" The clothing workers' strike is now on its eighth week, with
no visible signs of ending. The dead-lock is as complete as that
on the French frontier. Both sides have dug themselves in, and
the war seems to have settled down to attrition and endurance.
Not alone in dogged obstinacy does this industrial war compare
with that in Europe; for in strategy, in generalship, in the
fighting spirit of rank and file, the Chicago battle will compare
in its degree, with the titanic struggle in the Old World.

" Strikes there have been before in the garment industry, and
they have been fierce, violent, and hotly contested; but there
has been none like this in organization, management, and, in
the thoroughly planned and scientific efficiency of campaign.
Previous strikes have been spontaneous uprisings of an
aggrieved and infuriated populace, ruled by the mob spirit,
with little or no leadership, with less plan or method. The pres-
ent strike was planned with a coolness and thoroughness com-
parable to that of the general staff in Germany. Although the
hand of the general was forced rather prematurely, yet the war
with the anti-union manufacturers of Chicago had long been
regarded as inevitable, and there was no lack of preparedness
on part of the union. Organization had been perfected with
each factory as a unit, and in charge of each factory group
was placed a chairman, who was made responsible for his
people. Over the chairmen were placed district leaders, over
these department commanders, and above all the chief general-
issimo, President Sidney Hillman.

WELL DRILLED ARMY.

" When the strike was called the general found himself in
command of a well drilled, thoroughly officered, army. He
could give a command from his headquarters in the LaSalle
Hotel, and instantly the general staff at Hod Carriers Hall
would transmit it to the eager and expectant chairmen on the
north, south, and west sides, who would put the order into exe-
cution on the second.

" Thus it is that the movement is able to conduct itself with

106 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

such solidarity and precision. Everything in the campaign is
foreseen, nothing is left, to chance, and the eighth week finds the
union hosts in better fighting trim than at the beginning of the
strike. If the Joint Board, which is the name of the General
Staff, were to deem it advisable to call off the strike tomorrow it
would be done deliberately, forethoughtedly, and the retreat
would be accomplished and in good order. Like the overpowered
armies of Europe they would retire to a more favorable position,
only to renew the battle as soon as more munitions were obtained.

No RETREAT IN SIGHT.

" But there is no sign of a retreat as yet. General Hillman
assures me his lines are still intact, that supplies of munitions
are coming in steadily, and unless the unforseen happens to his
supplies he can hold the fort for another ten or twelve weeks.
He admits, however, that the demand on the treasury is increas-
ing. It is costing about $20,000 a week to run the strike, and
when it is remembered the battle was begun with an empty
treasury, and its cost has been borne largely by garment work-
ers not on strike, it will be seen the financing of the campaign
has been phenomenal. It is the stress of this need which now
brings Miss Jane Addams and her colleagues to the front in
an effort to raise $10,000 a week to help carry on the strike.

MANUFACTURERS STAND PAT.

" It may be asked what the associated manufacturers are
doing on their side of the trenches.

" So far as can be known, they are simply standing pat.
Silently, relentlessly, inscrutably, like the sphinx, they defy
every attempt to make them speak. Approached by judges,
city officials, state arbitrators, eminent citizens, their attitude
is always the same — silence. Deaf to importunities of press or
representatives of the social welfare, their voiceless lips seem
to give out only the old answer — ' the public be damned.'

" And yet, through the aid of a friendly intermediary, I have
been able to penetrate this screen of silence, and to hear the
explanation that some of the more conscientious manufacturers
give of their obduracy. It runs something like this :

" * We regard Sidney Hillman very highly. We believe him
honest, high-minded, and capable. But we don't believe he
can control his people. It is notorious that union leaders in
the garment trade are short-lived; they kill each other off.
With Hillman dead or dethroned we should be back in the hands
of the old grafting pirates, who would not enforce an
agreement, who would foment shop strikes for the purpose of

THE STRIKE OF 1915 j 107

extorting money out of us, who would destroy the quality of
our work, which has cost us so much to build up, who would, in
short, make life a hell to us and either drive us out of busi-
ness or into insane asylums.'

GIVE HILLMAN A CHANCE.

" I repeated this story to the little general, and he replied
laconically :

" ' Why don't they give Hillman a chance ?'

" And that is the only answer. Whether Hillman can control
his lieutenants and his people can only be determined by experi-
ment.

" I believe he can. Why do I believe it? ^ Because I have
worked side by side with him for several years, dealing with just
such questions as these manufacturers will have to face. In no
instance have I seen him fail to control his officers or his people,
and there have been plenty of cases in which he has had to
report unwelcome findings. Yet he has never flinched, never
failed to courageously face his comrades with unpleasant facts
and never has failed to win their approval and loyalty. I have
just received a private letter from one of the greatest generals
on the opposite side who has worked with Mr. Hillman in much
bigger situations than this. It contains this statement:

" * Too bad Friend Hillman bumped against such a tough
proposition, but in time his work will be understood, and the
manufacturers will be ready to treat with him.'

PLENTY or OTHER LEADERS.

" To be sure all this relates only to Hillman. But he is not
alone in the movement. He has scores of colleagues imbued
with the same ideals as himself, just as eager as he to have
right principles and practices prevail in the industry. All of
them are products of the new spirit in trade-unionism, men who
regard it as the inevitable first step in the great movement
toward industrial democracy and industrial peace. These men
are far-sighted enough to know the inevitable limitations of the,
prevailing wage system, who have self-restraint enough to ac-
cept and make the best of it while it is here, who may work for
the coming of the co-operative commonwealth in some happier
day, but who do not expect it to co-exist side by side with the
competitive system here and now. These men may be depended
on to hold down the wilder spirits in the ranks, who may be
tempted to rush the movement over some suicidal precipice.

108 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

THE IMPARTIAL THIIID MAN.

" But honesty and rationality does not depend so much on
accident of leadership as formerly. The mechanism of the
trade agreement has been so improved that the crooked walking
delegate has no longer any chance to graft. The introduction
of the impartial third man as umpire shears him of his power
of mischief. He can no longer order a stoppage and hold up
his employer for graft to call it off. Under the new dispensa-
tion all grievances must be brought before the joint board, and
there is no power left in the hands of the business agent to
make trouble. Neither need there be any misgivings about
quality of work. I have it on the highest authority that the
quality of work was never so high in Hart, Schaffner and Marx
as right now — and that after five years of co-operation with the
union.

" With these facts so obvious and so easily demonstrated why
does the association continue to shut its eyes and ears and to
play the sphinx?

" There seems no answer except an unreasoning timidity, or
a sheer, wilful, obstinacy and pride of mastery.

" They will be up against it next season again, or the season
after that.

" Why not settle now?"

CHAPTER VI

THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHICAGO

MARKET

THE organization of the Chicago market in the spring of
1919 was a great historic achievement for the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers. For nine years Chicago had been the
apparently unconquerable fortress of the clothing manufac-
turers and of all the forces that opposed the union and its pur-
poses. Chicago was the last of the big markets to withstand
the union and with its surrender the Amalgamated became a
great national organization. The entire period from the
loss of the 1910 strike to the signing of the market agree-
ment in 1919 was in reality one continuous campaign for
organization, sometimes flourishing, sometimes discourag-
ingly feeble, but never ceasing. It was the work of these
years and the foundations that they laid, that made the great
campaign successful. One of the general organizers said
of the 1919 campaign:

" It is plainly seen that the attack of 1919 was made by
veterans, and that the fruits of the campaign were the accumu-
lated results of the knowledge and experience of ten years of
constant endeavors."

The loss of the 1910 strike had been followed by a black
period for the clothing workers. The real resumption of
the work of organization began in 1914 after the birth of the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. The general
strike of 1915 apparently left the workers not much better
off as far as strength of organization or working conditions
were concerned; nevertheless, it had important moral results.
The failure of this strike was followed in 1916 by a strike
of cutters, which while also apparently a failure, stimulated
the work of organization and prepared the ground for the
great drive of 1918-19. The success of the Hart, Schaffner

110 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

and Marx agreement and the publicity given to the gains
of their workers contributed much to the growing dissatis-
faction among workers in the Association houses. In fact,
again and again, the Association houses were forced to grant
concessions in wages or hours in order to hold their workers
and continue to compete with Hart, Schaffner and Marx.
Just before the active drive began, the manufacturers, hop-
ing to weaken the campaign before it began, granted in-
creases of 10 per cent, to all workers. Finally, the Executive
Board of the national organization decided on an intensive
campaign to organize the whole of the Chicago market. The
campaign started officially in April, 1918, under the imme-
diate direction of the leaders of the -Chicago Joint Board.
For purposes of organization, Chicago was divided into dis-
tricts as follows: northwest side, west side and downtown
districts, the " Loop," and southwest side; a staff of organ-
izers was assigned to each of these districts and a special
staff to the cutters and trimmers.

The campaign opened with a lively distribution of or-
ganization leaflets and circulars printed in all languages.
The resolution passed in May, 1918, by the Hart, Schaffner
and Marx workers, donating one week's increases granted
them by the firm for the organization of the other Chicago
workers, was printed in several languages and distributed to
workers in the unorganized shops.

An important aspect of the campaign, and one that made
itself felt almost at once, was the influence of the war and
of the Government policy in the uniform shops. The ulti-
mate effect of this policy was to help the union by bringing
to light and removing the most unfair accusations that the
employers sought to make against it. The Federal War
Labor Board laid down the principles of collective bargain-
ing for the guidance of the Administrator of Labor
Standards. These principles recognized the right of
workers to organize and bargain collectively and prohibited
discrimination against workers by reason of their member-
ship in labor organizations or of their participation in union
activities. The union took it upon itself to inform the

THl

Of rut

QWUSltt Or ilL!!«

workers of their rights to organize under Government regu-
lations and, when the employers resisted their right to do
so, took the grievances of the workers to the Administration
of Labor Standards for adjustment. One of the most im-
portant of these cases was the John Hall Uniform Factory
case, in which the firm had discharged the " agitators " who
attempted to organize their shop in June, 1918. So keen
was the spirit among the workers that they wanted to strike
at once to compel reinstatement. President Hillman, how-
ever, wired the War Department asking that arrangements
be made for the adjustment of the grievances and in the
meantime instructed the workers not to strike. Conferences
were held and the grievances eventually satisfactorily
settled. Those who had been discharged were reinstated,
wages were readjusted after a thorough investigation, and
the employers were ordered to deal with the organization of
their employees in accordance with the principles of the War
Labor Board. Several other firms were charged with vio-
lating the Government war labor program by discharging
workers because of their union membership or activity. The
charges were investigated and proved to be true. Under
pressure of the Administrator, one of the firms, which had
discharged eight representatives elected by their fellow-
employees to serve on a committee, reinstated these workers
with back pay, recognized the shop committee, and agreed
to the other demands of their workers.

A similar situation occurred in the Scotch Woolen Mills.
After a long strike, the firm secured a sweeping order from
Judge Smith enjoining the Amalgamated from picketing
or maintaining pickets at or near the premises of the com-
plainants or along routes followed by employees of com-
plainants in going to and from their business, from watching
or spying on places of business or employees, or those going
in and out, or seeking to do business, from congregating
near places of business or employees for purposes of com-
pelling, inducing, or soliciting employees to leave their em-
ployment, or to attempt in any way to induce employees to
leave their employment. But when the Scotch Woolen Mills

112 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

refused to appear before Prof. Ripley to answer the charges
against it, he recommended to the Quartermaster General
that all contracts with the firm be withdrawn until the firm
agreed to appear. This was done. The firm of Rosenwald
and Weil, likewise, had discharged the entire committee
chosen by its employees and then refused to appear before
the arbitrator. All the workers had gone on strike when the
second committee was discharged, but for two weeks the firm
held out. The demands of the workers as finally arbitrated
by Professor Ripley included the 48-hour week, with time
and a half for overtime, double pay for Sundays and no
work on holidays; recognition of the shop chairman and
shop committee; no discrimination for membership in the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers; no arbitrary discharge;
an increase of 30 per cent, to all workers; a minimum wage
for women of $14 and for all operators of $24. After two
weeks, recognition of the shop chairman and shop committee
and a promise of no discrimination against union members
were granted. The rest of the demands were submitted to
arbitration.

In the meantime the work of organization was proceeding
with vigor. One of the earliest successful mass meetings in
the campaign was held in June, 1918, and added 400 new
members to the ranks of the organization. The inauguration
of the campaign brought on the usual program of opposition,
misrepresentation in the press, and court injunctions. Two
organizers and President Kroll of Local 61 were arrested
near factories which they were trying to organize for dis-
tributing literature and two girls were arrested the same
evening for speaking to non-union workers as they came out
of the factory.

An incident that occurred early in the campaign illus-
trates the attitude of the police.

" On November 11, 1918, Armistice Day, the cutters and
trimmers of Hart, Schaffner and Marx, celebrating the cessa-
tion of war in Europe, paraded the clothing district of Chicago
with a large American flag and the red banner of local 61 at
their head. When they attempted to pass the Scotch Woolen

ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET 113

Mills they found police drawn up clear across the street for-
bidding them to pass, but the men pressed on. In the scuffle
the flag dropped low and an officer stepped on it, and when his
attention was called to what he had done, said : * To hell with
the flag.' "

When that was heard the men could no longer be held; they
swept the police lines aside and charged on the doors of the
factory. It was these men, who would not be denied, who
carried on the fight for years in Chicago.

At the close of the war more organization circulars were
printed and distributed in great numbers. These brought
responses from the employers such as the following:

" WORKINGMEN, WAKE UP !"

" You were induced to walk out by the organizers of the
Amalgamated Workers. You ignore the fact that your only
hope for prosperity is production. Produce more, not less, if
you want to reduce prices * * * Production is the basis of
all wealth * * * "

Some firms attempted to appeal to workers on the ground
of race prejudice, and others assured the workers that the
money they paid in for membership dues was being squan-
dered by their leaders. In the meantime the membership
continued to grow, thanks to the effective work of union
members not on the staff, as well as by the organizers.

Organizer Kroll who was in charge of activities of the
cutters at this time gives an idea of the spirit that prevailed
among the organization workers:

" These were the days that 25,000 leaflets would be distri-
buted in one hour in the mornings, when organizers would be
arrested for just talking to workers, when cards calling for a
shop meeting would be passed out in the morning and at noon
the men would be notified that they would find more money in
their envelopes. Firms closed their factories before the men
went out on strike and weeks later opened them again and
the men refused to return. Cutters would be sent home in
machines to keep the organizers away. A man seen talking to.
a union man would be fired the next day. Sluggers and police
were used in front of the factories even before the strikes were
on. Banquets were given, profit-sharing and bonuses 'A la

114 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

Rockefeller Foundation ' were proposed. In spite of all of this
steady progress was being made.

" The * Floating Cutter ' came in at this stage of the game.
These were union men who secured jobs in non-union shops,
went to work in the morning, talked unionism at noon and re-
ceived a full week's wages and a discharge in the evening:
secured another job the next day and went through the same
performance. There were a number who had a lucrative pro-
fession for a while."

On January 8, 1919, Hart, Schaffner and Marx estab-
lished for its workers the 44-hour week. This action forced
the non-union manufacturers to move. So on January 22
the Special Order Tailors made a similar announcement,
and one week later the Chicago Clothiers' Association an-
nounced the 44-hour week to become effective in all of their
shops on April 28. But the Amalgamated Clothing Workers
decided'that the 44-hour week was to be established at once—
on January 29th, and not on April 28th. The workers of
Kuppenheimer & Company, in accordance with the decision,
stopped work on January 29th at 4.30 instead of 5.15 in or-
der to attend a shop meeting. By stopping at 4.30, they
made their quitting time the same as that of those who were
working a 44-hour week. At the shop meeting these workers
were addressed by Levin, who instructed them to return to
the shop the next morning, as usual, and to leave again at
4.30 to attend a shop meeting. The Amalgamated Clothing
Workers, he announced, would undertake to care for any
workers discharged for so doing. It is clear that this step
could not have been taken had not the organization been
fairly complete by this time.

On January 28, Alfred, Decker & Cohn published a state-
ment in the press denying that they were offering the 44-
hour week to their employees, but at the same time printed
circulars were appearing which included a promise of a 44-
hour week, as well as other advantages, provided the workers
did not join the Union. The firm thought that when the
workers quit at 4.30 it was a strike and consulted other firms
in the Association. The result was something of a panic; a
hasty change was made in the notices to the effect that the

Officers and Members Executive Board Coatmakers
Local 39

Officers and Members Executive Board Cutters and
Trimmers Local 61

fHt,

IHk

ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET 115

44-hour week would be established on January 30th. This
change was made three days after the original notice was
posted. The significance of this victory was not only that
approximately 32,000 workers got the 44-hour week on
January 28th instead of April 28th, but it indicated that the
Union was in such a position that it could dictate its terms
and the Association houses knew it. This victory was cele-
brated by a great mass meeting on February 3d. The organ-
ization drive proceeded thereafter with renewed energy.

In the month of February membership grew by lea^ps and
bounds, The northwest side, including some 13,000 work-
ers, was put in charge of Mr. Glickman. With the assistance
of the business agents and an active organization committee
of fifteen, with Mr. Diamond as chairman, the work of the
district was carried on. Meetings were held every morning
before going to work. The committee had to get more mem-
bers of the vest shops interested in the campaign, which they
did to such an extent that after several of these meetings
there were 50 to 75 members present every morning. The
committee went on duty in front of shops every morning
before going to work and left the shop 15 or 20 minutes
before lunch time and before quitting time in the evening, in
order to carry on their campaign work. Of course there was
no pay for time lost. A meeting of one of the Kuppenheimer
shops, one of the largest and most bitter anti-union shops,
increased the membership by 50. The story of how this
victory was won is told by Organizer Glickman :

" The building at Winchester Avenue, and Bloomingdale
Road, housing three shops of B. Kuppenheimer was one of the
fortresses of the Association. During the entire period of the
campaign, private detectives and sluggers were stationed inside
and out of that shop. Numerous arrests of our officers and
committees were made. On one particular evening in the month
of March, 1919, 12 of our committee men were arrested. Six
patrol wagons responded to a riot call sent in by the Company.
Three of our men were badly cut with knives by the Company's
employees and a great many more men beaten by policemen's
clubs. In spite of all this, the work of the organization in this
House was not weakened by this incident, and finally a group

116 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

of workers of this building attended one of the shop meetings,
their numbers steadily increasing, until it led to the signing of
the Agreement."

Things then began to move more rapidly.

" About the 1st of March, the people of the firm of Spiesber-
ger, Erman & Co., a children's clothing house with two coat
shops and one knee pants shop went on a strike. The usual
arrests of pickets and slugging of our members took place.
The majority of the people stayed about 6 weeks, when the
organization decided to send the people back to work by ar-
rangement with an elected committee of the people, and only
a few weeks later, this House came under the general agree-
ment signed with the Association. The next house to sign was
the Pellstein Clothing Company, manufacturers of young men's
clothing. After many shop meetings, demands were presented
and on Easter Monday, 1919, the agreement with increases both
for the tailors and cutters was signed. Another important
event was the strike in the shops of Chas. Kaufman & Bros,
after months of organization work. The people of that House
went out on a strike about the middle of February. The cut-
ters, working in the main building, also went out, and the
picketing was supervised by these cutters. This House applied
for and was granted an injunction against our organization,
restraining us from doing anything except breathing. Many
a member has had a ride in the patrol wagon. Sluggers and
strike breakers were employed and after a period of five weeks,
the people went back to work and about a month later this
House came under the general agreement. The overcoat sh«>]>,
" D," of Alfred Decker & Cohn deserves special mention.
There were about 250 people employed there. As early as
November, 1918, the organization got a strong hold in this
shop. In December, 1919, the people had elected Brother Max
Brown as their chairman at one of the shop meetings. Of
course, he was not recognized, but due to the strength of the
organization in this shop, he was not discriminated against.
The following incident especially is worth mentioning, for it
showed the spirit of the people as well as the power they com-
manded in the shop. In the middle of January, 1919, Lichten-
stein, a collar maker, was discharged by the firm. At this time
the chairman was taking up some complaints semi-oificially with
the company, so he took up the matter of Lichtenstein's dis-
charge. After three weeks of unsuccessful efforts, the people
displayed their strength by stopping work in the shop. This
stoppage lasted about 2^ hours, tying up completely the

ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET 117

entire shop. The Company then re-instated the man, with pay
for the three week's lost time, and also paid all the people for
the time they lost during the stoppage. In February, 1919,
the organization arranged a dance for the people of the shop
at the Wicker Park Hall, which was an immense success, as
not only the people of that shop attended, but invitations wero
extended to the workers of the other shops of this concern, and
a great number of these were present. This was practically
the first time that a shop, belonging to the Association, had
attended a successful affair given by the Union. In the latter
part of March, 1919, the people of the shop presented demands
for recognition of their shop chairman and shop committee,
also for an increase in wages. After several negotiations, the
Company refused the people's demands. The people went out
on a strike. After the first week of the strike, negotiations with
the Company were started by the Chairman and committee, but
with no avail; however, after the strike had lasted four weeks,
successful arrangements were made for all people to return to
work with recognition of the chairman and committee and nq
discrimination for union affiliation. The question of increases
in wages was to be taken up later. The committee held only
3 or 4 meetings, and just when they were ready to make final
arrangements, the general agreement was signed with that
House.

" During all this time the organization campaign was pushed
vigorously. Shop meetings were held daily, while the commit-
tees together with officers went in front of the shops three times
a day. Many of the large and small shops attended these
meetings. There were as many as 8 or 10 meetings daily and
the prevailing spirit was very good.

" The Cohn & Rissman cutters walked out with the tailors
early in March. Besides the usual formula of injunctions, slug-
gers, bribes and the police, the firm tried a new stunt which is
worth telling. One mid-night the boss and the foreman went
visiting the cutters' homes in an automobile, telling each one
that the other was going to work in the morning. A loyal cut-
ter called Brother Rissman at 12 o'clock and he called Brother
Kroll (they had just come home from a meeting) ; they secured
a machine and also went visiting about 1 a. m. and insisted that
each cutter they called on, dress and get in, the machine with
them. So at 5 a. m. there were two-machine-loads of pickets
in front of the factory and not a man went in.

" The Charles Kaufman men were also early to strike and
immediately the 1916 injunction was put on the walls (that

118 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

was the style — one day a strike and the next day an injunction
appeared). Despite this they put up a wonderful fight and
were sent back to work just previous to the signing of the agree-
ment.

" The Chicago Tailoring Association men were also organiz-
ing and one day the astounding news spread through the cloth-
ing district that every man in; the cutting room had received
a nine dollar raise which made them the highest paid cutters
in the city, but they continued to organize.

" The Special Order cutters who were so hard to organize
were now snowing signs of activity. Soon the Bridie and Rog-
ofsky men were in the union and made a demand for more
wages and when refused they sat on the tables without working,
went out at noon and came back and still sat on the tables.
This continued for a day and a half until their demands were
granted. Next day two active union men were fired and the
rest walked out on strike and stayed out until an agreement
was reached.

" The International Cutters were next in line. Here union
men were discharged and the firm refused to reinstate them.
The men then struck and soon the firm offered to reinstate the
men, but the men then wanted a closed shop, and a telephone
conversation ensued from the union office to the firm which
secured for the men a $6.00 raise, but even then it took great
effort to get them to return to work.

" The leaven was also working in Kuppenheimer's trimming
room. One noon-day a young trimmer was asked to see what
he could do towards organizing the trimming room and at 2.30
p. m. he brought the entire trimming force over to the Union
Headquarters, about 25 boys all over 19 years, to join the
union and they then returned to work.

" A shop chairman in Hirsch Wickwire's shop was fired out
one day and a stoppage occurred in the factory, and then word
was signaled from the street to the cutting room, the cutters
stopped like a unit and the chairman was reinstated. This was
the first demonstration of the solidarity of an entire factory in
the campaign."

On March 12th, the National Tailoring Company, against
whom a strike had been conducted for recognition and in-
crease in wages, settled with the union, granting an increase

ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET 119

of $4 a week. On March 13th, the City Tailors settled with
the union, giving a 10% increase in addition to 15% pre-
viously granted. The Continental Tailoring Company en-
tered into a preferential agreement and granted a 7% in-
crease. Still the association was maintaining a system of
blacklisting by means of which they could discriminate
against workers active in the organization. An application
blank was filed for each applicant with the chief of the " La-
bor Bureau," indicating the opinions of the applicant, what
organizations he belonged to, what offices he had held, if any,
and the names and addresses of his last five employers.

On March 20th a great mass meeting to celebrate the
organization campaign was held in Carmen's Hall. Presi-
dent Hillman, Secretary-Treasurer Schlossberg, John Fitz-
patrick, and others addressed this meeting. A resolution
was there unanimously adopted authorizing the Chicago
officers of the union to enforce collective bargaining and to
take whatever action they deemed necessary for such enforce-
ment. The thrill of that meeting touched even the news-
paper reporters, one of whom described it vividly in an edi-
torial :

" A rush of crowds, clamor and surge of seat hunting.
Eagerness of spirit * * * Middle-aged men and women,
listening not with attention but with passionate intentness * * *
Sentences you could put your teeth into, like : * While the
world war was fought to make the world fit for democracy, we
are fighting, we are organizing, and shall continue to fight and
organize until we are 100% organized and can make the world
a fit place and a decent place for working people to work in.'
* * * Lavish literature everywhere — lavish in quantity and
in style * * * The gustiness of it all caught you up and
swirled you along * * * They did not ask things or plead
for them. They crisply formulated demands."

Towards April, the employers were beginning to show
signs of panic. They yielded on every side. Increase fol-
lowed increase, but still the applications for membership
came in by the hundreds. Individual firms, like the Con-
tinental Tailoring Company, were entering agreements with
the union similar to the Hart, Schaffner and Marx agree-

120 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

ments. Under the Continental Tailoring Co. agreement
even the impartial machinery was established, with Mullen-
bach as chairman. The Majestic Tailors and the Oxford
Tailoring Company were by this time signed up while others
were negotiating with the union.

On March 26th, the strike against B. Kuppenheimer &
Co. was won. The firm agreed to reinstate all of its work-
ers without discrimination, to recognize the shop committee,
and to pay the strikers for all the time they were out. In the
meantime, the organizers were kept busy enrolling new mem-
bers from all the shops. By the end of March agreements
were signed with seventeen more individual firms, and Mr.
Rosenblum reported that the southwest district situation
was better than it had ever been before. In April, Charles
Kaufman & Bros., Alfred Decker & Cohn, and other im-
portant shops, sent out letters to all their employees urging
them to return and made a last effort to induce them to be
satisfied with their shop committee system. Organizer Glick-
man describes the attempt made by many of the firms to in-
augurate the shop committee as a last device to smash the
union:

" In order to give a correct idea of these committee systems
I will explain what they meant in one of the houses, B. Kuppen-
heimer & Co. The designer, the production manager, and the
superintendent of the building called all the employees together
on their main floor and explained to them that they wanted the
people to elect their representatives in the shop, that they did
not have to join the union in order to better their conditions,
that all those who did not join the union would receive one
week's vacation with pay and a bonus on their earnings. Three
committees consisting of either men or women were to be electe4
on each floor. One committee was to represent all pressing sec-
tions, one all operating sections and one all hand work sections.
A ballot box was then produced, slips of paper distributed and
some workers, who were loyal to the company, voted. All union
people refrained from voting, having been previously so in-
structed at the organization shop meetings. The company's
representatives then took the ballot box with them, returned the
following day, announcing the names of twelve workers who
supposedly were elected. Among these were five good union

THt nbiURY

OF THt
UWVERSiTY Or fLUMIS

ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET 121

men. After this, they were called to the main building where
a conference with the highest officials of the company was held.
Again the same promises, and as expected, the union men were
the spokesmen for the committee, working according to instruc-
tions given them by the union. They asked the company to
issue all their propositions in a written form so that they might
return to the people in the shop with something that was con-
crete. This the company refused. Six or seven conferences
of a similar nature were held but the company received little or
no satisfaction. Exactly what happened in Kuppenheimer's
shop happened in the other association houses, as they all fol-
lowed the same program with the same unsuccessful results,
since the union had a perfected organization in almost every
shop in the city as well as in the district."

It was now the beginning of the end. In the next few
weeks more shops settled with the union. The firm of Cohn
& Rissman secured an injunction against picketing and had
nine strikers arrested. By the end of April three thousand
workers were on strike for recognition. The firm of Alfred
Decker & Cohn was completely tied up ; the strike was again
renewed against the Kuppenheimer Company and strikes
against many small firms were in progress. Nearly three
hundred pickets had been arrested, but the membership grew
so rapidly that the northwest side district was forced to move
its offices in order to accommodate the increase in mem-
bership.

The first day of May, 1919, was a day long to be remem-
bered. The Ashland Auditorium was secured for the cele-
bration. Word was sent to the non-union shops, calling upon
the workers to join in celebrating the workers' international
holiday and to demonstrate the solidarity of the working
class. The hour for their stoppage was set at 2:30 P. M.
On the hour the workers left their benches in the non-union
cutting rooms and factories and all flocked to the halls which
were soon crowded to the doors. The " shop committee "
plans sponsored by the employers had now definitely failed.
In the first week of May the strike against Alfred Decker
& Cohn was settled; the firm recognized the shop committee
and promised to establish machinery for collective bargain-

122 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

ing. On these terms work was resumed on Monday, May 5,
and all the workers returned. The Cohn & Rissman strike
was also terminated with a preferential shop agreement and
a fifteen per cent, increase.

" Then came reports of this house conferring with the union
to get their strikers back, that house offering to sign on a cer-
tain date, others giving indications of willingness to negotiate.
Then that day in May, when the world never seemed so bright
and the sky so blue, came the word that the A. C. W. of A. and
the Wholesale Manufacturers' Association had reached an un-
derstanding and an agreement was to be signed."

On May 13, 1919, President Hillman was ready to present
to the Chicago clothing workers an agreement with the
Association, providing for a preferential union shop and
arbitration machinery. Notices were posted in all the shops
of the Wholesale Clothiers' Association, notifying the work-
ers that the Association had signed up and directing them to
meet at 3 :30 in the Carmen's Hall to vote on the agreement
that would be there submitted to them. All the factories
closed at 2 :30 P. M. The Hart, Schaff ner and Marx workers
who had fought, bled and paid for this day, left their benches
at 2 o'clock; and promptly at 2:30 the non-union factories
opened their doors and the workers marched to the hall
through the solid ranks of the cheering thousands of union
men and women who had helped them in their struggle for
emancipation. The meeting was opened by Mr. Rissman.
After addresses by Rosenblum, Levin and a few others,
President Hillman submitted the pact to the workers and it
was unanimously ratified.

At the same time negotiations were in progress between
the union and the Wholesale Tailors' Association. The
Cut, Make and Trim Association agreed to sign with the
union, granting a $35 minimum for cutters, and whatever
the union scale was, to the tailors. This association included
about two thousand people. On May 26, at another great
mass meeting, the members ratified the agreement with the
National Wholesale Tailors' Association by unanimous vote.
This concluded the organization of the whole market. " The

ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET 123

U. G. ' Label Shops ' swung over at last, the Chicago cloth-
ing cutters were industrially free, no more Medinah Temple
with its infamous blacklist, no more cringing or begging
favors from bullying tyrants of foremen. At last our wild-
est dreams are brought to a realization — Chicago 100 per
cent. Amalgamated."

THt MBftARY
OF THk

AcMNOIS

General Executive Board, Anui

ted Clothing Workers of America, 1920-1922

THE IIBBARY
OF m

a*

PART II
WAGES AND HOURS

CHAPTER VII

WAGES AND HOURS, 1911-1921

WAGES of the clothing worker in Chicago at the beginning
of 1911 were those of the unorganized and sweated worker.
Fifteen dollars were the average earnings of the men
workers and ten dollars the average earnings of the women
workers for the full time week of 54 hours. These are the
figures compiled by the United States Government from the
payrolls of the clothing firms in 1911.

It is interesting that the first agreement of the union with
Hart, Schaffner and Marx, March 13, 1911, contained as a
concession to the union the following provision with regard
to a minimum wage:

" No employee shall receive less than $5.00 per week and no
male employee above the age of 17 shall receive less than $6.00
per week, and no male employee above the age of 18 shall receive
less than $8.00 per week."

The need for a minimum wage provision of this sort is
revealed in the examination of the books of the clothing
manufacturers in 1911 made by the Federal Government.
The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 8
per cent, of all women workers received less than $5 a week
and that 49 per cent, received less than $10 a week. Only
one out of every seven women workers received as much as
$13.50 for a 54-hour week. Among the men workers 8 per
cent, received less than $8 a week and 40 per cent. $13 or
less. Or in other words, these 40 per cent, were paid at the
rate of less than 25 cents per hour. Of all the men workers
in the tailor shops in 1911 only one in twenty (5 per cent,
of the total) received as much as 40 cents an hour for his
work. Among the cutters the government found that 89

128 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

out of 583 cutters then employed in the factories selected
for investigation in Chicago in 1911 received less than 30
cents an hour. The full earnings of these 89 cutters for
a 48-hour week was $15 a week or less. In 1911 only 4 per
cent, of all the cutters in the Chicago market received as
much as 60 cents an hour.

The same report of the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics on wages in Chicago showed that men basters on
coats in 1911 earned $13.65 on the average and women
basters $10.94 a week. Bushelers and tailors averaged
$14.11; cutters $19.30, although a few machine cutters were
reported earning $24.60; examiners $15.36; fitters, reported
as the highest paid section in the tailoring department,
$17.13; men operators on coats $17.09; women operators
$12.07. Pressers received on the average $14.21.

These were the average earnings when the people worked
54 hours per week. Seasonal unemployment was then, as
it is still, a very serious factor. Taking into account the loss
of earnings during the slack season, men workers in the
Chicago clothing industry in 1911 hardly averaged more
than $10 or $11 per week over the entire year. Even at the
very low prices of 1910-11 these wages bought less food,
clothing and shelter than was necessary to maintain even a
minimum subsistence standard of living. For many workers
with families it was virtually a starvation wage.

The first agreement with the union in the Chicago cloth-
ing market took some recognition of these conditions. The
union succeeded in securing an increase for all of the workers.
The agreement with Hart, Schaffner and Marx read as
follows :

" That there shall be a uniform increase in the wages of all
the employes engaged in the manufacture of clothing in the
tailor shops whether by piece work or by time work of 10 per
cent."

In the trimming department the minimum rate was fixed
at $8 per week and an increase of 10 per cent, was also
granted. In the woolen examining department the piece work
rate was adjusted to give a similar 10 per cent, increase.

WAGES AND HOURS, 1911-1921 129

Cutters' wages were raised 5 per cent. The agreement also
specifically provided that in all departments persons that
were paid by the week shall be paid time and a half for over-
time. The company voluntarily extended the application
of time and a half for overtime to the piece workers at the
same time. Not until 1917, six years later, did workers in
certain non-union houses in the Chicago market receive pay
and a half for overtime. The agreement also established the
54-hour week.

The progress of the workers in the Chicago market, as a
whole, in the matter of wages was very slow in the early
years of the Chicago organization. In 1912 the government
again examined the payrolls and reported that average wages
of all workers had risen from $12.24 in 1911 to $12.68 in
1912. The gain was 3 per cent. Men workers had fared
better than the women workers. Average earnings for the
men rose $1.50 a week, or 10 per cent, from 1911 to 1912,
while the wages of the women workers averaged only 2 per
cent, more in 1912 than they did in 1911. Already the pro-
vision in the agreement of 1911 increasing the pay of the
workers in Hart, Schaffner and Marx had had its effect
upon the earnings of the workers generally, particularly the
men workers.

A supplemental agreement was negotiated and made ef-
fective April 1, 1912. This agreement provided for the estab-
lishment of a trade board with authority to fix piece work
rates. In fixing piece work rates the board was to be guided
by the rule : " Changed prices must correspond to the
changed work and new prices must be based upon old prices
where possible." The effect of this rule was to place the
making of piece work prices on a more scientific basis and to
prevent possible under-cutting of the wage standard in effect
by a change in specifications for work done. This rule has
been in effect continuously since it was first adopted in 1912.

In 1913 the first agreement with the Hart, Schaffner and
Marx Company was renewed. Specifically, no increases in
wages were granted. Hours of work were reduced, how-
ever, from 54 to 52 and earnings were adjusted so that the

worker suffered no loss by the reduction in hours. In non-
union shops, making a similar change in hours, weekly earn-
ings were reduced. This is indicated in the survey of the pay-
rolls made in 1914 by the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics which shows a falling off in the average earnings
per full-time week of men workers in the clothing industry
generally. The Bureau attributes the loss in earnings to
the reduction in the number of hours worked.

The 1913 agreement with Hart, Schaffner and Marx,
moreover, specifically provided that piece workers were to
receive rate and one-half for overtime work. This had al-
ready been the practice since 1911, but it was written into the
agreement for the first time in 1913. Minor changes were
also made in the minimum wage provisions so that workers
automatically were raised certain specified amounts after
three months' service.

In July, 1914, the average wages of the worker in the
coat shop and the increases over 1911 were as follows:

Average Wages

per Full Increase

Operation. Time Week. Since

1914. 1911.

Basters —

Men $14.48 $0.83

Women 11 . 49 .55

Bushelers and Tailors 14.67 .56

Cutters —

Hand 22.01 2.71

Machine 25 . 22 .62

Examiners » 17.40 2.04

Fitters 18. 13 1 .00

Hand Sewers —

Men 13.40 1.46

Women 10.53 1.20

Operators, Coat Shop —

Men 18.16 1.07

Women 12.74 .67

Pressers, Coat 16 . 59 2 . 38

WAGES AND HOURS, 1911-1921 131

The average earnings of men workers in the men's clothing
industry in Chicago in 1914 were $16.49 per week, or roughly
about 10 per cent, higher than in 1911. The earnings of
women had, however, been increased more than had the
earnings of the men during the first three years of the life
of the Chicago organization. In 1911 the earnings of women
for a 54-hour week were $10 on the average. In 1914, for a
52-hour week the average earnings were $13.69.

Wages were, it is true, higher in 1914 than in 1911, but
they were still far below an amount necessary to permit the
worker and his family a proper standard of living.

Early in 1915 a vigorous campaign of organization was
begun in the shops not then operating under union agree-
ment. The workers in Hart, Schaffner and Marx were then
the only ones organized. As a result of the campaign, the
workers presented demands through the union to the non-
union houses for increases in wages, betterment of working
conditions and the recognition of the union. The manufac-
turers refused to consider the demands of the workers and
a long, bitter and costly strike followed.

The strike was terminated by " shop settlements," carry-
ing a reduction of hours in the working week. In the
tailors-to-the-trade houses hours were reduced from 52 to 48.
The ready-made houses followed their example in April,
1916, and reduced hours from 52 to 50. Shortly after
the strike was settled one of the largest tailors-to-the-
trade firms gave a 10 per cent, increase in wages to the
workers. The ready-made clothing firms then followed by
granting a 10 per cent, increase in the form of a " bonus."
The strike thus brought almost immediately increases in
wages, although the manufacturers had " won." The spirit
shown by the workers during the strike had forced conces-
sions from the employers.

At the end of the 1915 strike there was no change in the
number of firms officially recognizing the Amalgamated.
The Hart, Schaffner and Marx Company continued to be

132 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the only firm under agreement with the organization. But
those who worked in the non-union shops had returned to
work after the strike with a new feeling of loyalty to the
union. The beginning of a permanent organization in non-
union shops was under way. The manufacturers recognized
the change in the situation. For the next three years, there-
fore, the history of wages in the Chicago market was largely
determined by the progress made by the union in their deal-
ings with Hart, Schaffner and Marx Company. The other
^ manufacturers in the market made wage adjustments in
1916, 1917 and 1918 only as the union gained concessions in
dealing with the house which since 1911 had recognized the
union. Sometimes these increases (" bonuses " as they were
called so they could be withdrawn more readily if conditions
warranted) were granted while negotiations between the
union and Hart, Schaffner and Marx were in progress. It
was the purpose of the non-union manufacturers to anticipate
the official increases pending in Hart, Schaffner and Marx.
In other instances the increases immediately followed an
agreement between the union and that firm or a favorable
decision by the Board of Arbitration so as to keep in check
as much as possible disaffection and organization campaigns
in the non-union shops. Consequently, although the union
was recognized officially only by the Hart, Schaffner and
Marx Company, every concession gained by the union in
its dealings with that company immediately affected the en-
tire market.

The agreement of 1913 expired in the spring of 1916 and
a new agreement with the Hart, Schaffner and Marx Com-
pany was entered into at that time. The signing of the new
agreement marked the five-year anniversary of the Amal-
gamated organization in Chicago. The 1916 agreement pro-
vided that the company should .give an increase in wages
equal in amount to 10 per cent, of the total payroll of the
shops. The union was granted the right to distribute this
advance according to its best judgment. This unusual re-
sponsibility the union accepted and it distributed the in-

WAGES AND HOURS, 1911-1921 133

crease not uniformly among all workers, but in such a way
as to grant the largest increases to those who worked in the
poorly paid sections. The courage and wisdom of the union
in suggesting and applying this procedure was publicly
recognized at the time by a statement from the chairman of
the Board of Arbitration, Mr. J. E. Williams. He then
wrote:

" And now I have to record what is to me the most remark-
able feature of the whole settlement. Instead of taking the ten
per cent, advance and applying it horizontally to all workers
alike, the union has made the unheard of demand that it be per-
mitted to distribute the ten per cent, in such manner as to more
equitably compensate the poorly paid workers. That is, they
want to give most of the benefit of the advance to those receiv-
ing the lowest pay, so that the inferior sections may possibly
be raised twenty per cent, while the higher paid sections may
receive only five per cent. — if equity requires it.

" Consider what this means. It means that the stronger and
more skilled workers are voluntarily denying themselves of an
equal share in order that justice may be done their more needy
brethren.

" It means, too, that we have a union here so highly developed
that it is able to devote itself to ideal aims and is strong enough
to enforce these ideal aims on selfish and rebellious members —
should there be any.

" Will anyone say that a union that is able to rise to this
height of self-discipline, is dangerous or unfit to be trusted with
power? Will anyone pretend that such a union is incapable of
self-control?

The cutting and trimming departments received special
treatment in the 1916 agreement. All cutters whose wages
were less than $26 per week were given an increase of $1
per week. In the trimming department all men receiving
$15 or less per week were given increases of $2 per week;
all men receiving over $15 per week and not exceeding $20
per week were given increases of $1 per week. In addition
the agreement provided for periodical increases to underpaid
workers to bring their wages up to higher levels.

134 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

The following provisions in regard to the minimum wage
were made effective by the 1916 agreement:

The minimum wage scale in the tailor shops shall be as fol-
lows:

1st 2nd 3rd

Month. Month. Month.

Machine operators (male and

female) $5.00 $7.00 $9.00

Women in hand work sections ... 5 . 00 6 . 00 8 . 00

Men, 18 years and over, not opera-
tors 8.00 10.00 12.00

All men not included in above 8 . 00 9 . 00 10 . 00

Inspector tailors (men) 16.00 .... ....

The new agreement made in 1916 also registered an im-
portant gain in the number of hours constituting a full-time
week. Hours of work were reduced from 52 to 49. In
January, 1917, the company again reduced hours from 49 to
48 and piece work rates were increased 2 per cent., again in
order not to affect the earnings of the piece worker under the
new schedule of hours.

The first general increase of wages during the war period
was made by decision of the Board of Arbitration on May 1,
1917. This increase was granted after a hearing had been
held under the so-called " emergency " clause in the agree-
ment with Hart, Schaffner and Marx. Wages of week
workers and piece work rates in the tailor shops were in-
creased by 10 per cent. The cutters at the same time were
given an increase of $2.35, which amounted, roughly, to 10
per cent, of their average earnings.

Early in 1918 the union again brought to the attention of
the company the demand of the workers for higher wages.
Direct negotiations between the union and the company were
begun which culminated in a successful agreement, effective
May 1, 1918. The question of higher wages in this instance

WAGES AND HOURS, 1911-1921 135

was not brought to the Board of Arbitration. Under the

agreement of May 1, 1918, cutters, trimmers and week

workers in the tailor shops were granted an increase of

$3 per week. As in 1916 no horizontal increase for piece

workers was made. The workers in the poorly paid sections

were granted a 15 per cent, increase and those in the better

paid sections a 10 per cent, increase. The average increase

then given was 12% per cent. The wage adjustment of

1918 followed the same general principle first adopted in

the 1916 settlement. It brought up the wage standards of

the workers of the more poorly paid sections to a higher

level by distributing the advance in wages so that they would

receive proportionately greater increases than the workers in

the better paid sections.

The term of the agreement of 1916 was three years and
the date of expiration was 1919. Negotiations between the
union and the company were begun in the latter part of 1918
and were carried to a successful conclusion on January 7,
1919. At that time the Amalgamated in New York City
was in a state of lockout, declared by the New York manu-
facturers in their efforts to defeat the movement for the 44-
hour week. The new agreement with Hart, Schaffner and
Marx established the 44-hour week and increased piece work
rates by Sl/i per cent, so that piece workers could earn in 44
hours as much as they had formerly earned during a 48-hour
week. Week workers were granted an increase of $2 per
week. The result of the agreement was a very important
one, quite aside from its immediate effect on wages and
hours in the Chicago market. It marked the inauguration
of the 44-hour week in the clothing industry throughout the
country and it seriously weakened the morale of the New
York manufacturers who were still fighting the union on this
issue.

Organization work had, in the meantime, been proceeding
slowly but effectively in the non-union shops in the Chicago
clothing industry. Early in 1919 the workers came to the

136 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

realization that they were now strong enough to demand
their rights. There then followed in the non-union shops,
from January to May, a series of shop strikes and section
stoppages which forced concession after concession from the
non-union employers. Increases were granted in some cases
to sections and in other instances to whole shops. Several of
the non-union firms were forced to grant general increases
for all their workers of 10 per cent, in addition to increases
already granted to individual sections. To quote but a few
examples, on January 20. 1919, E. V. Price, a leading
tailor-to- the-trade house, gave a 10 per cent, horizontal in-
crease. On January 27 the Wholesale Clothiers' Associa-
tion, composed of all of the important ready-made clothing
firms in the city, with the exception of Hart, Schaffner and
Marx, announced a 10 per cent, wage increase. Although it
was stated that the increase was not to be put into effect until
April 28, it was actually made effective by certain houses
early in February.

On March 3 fifty cutters employed by the Chicago Tailors'
Association, after a stoppage of work caused by the dis-
charge of an active member, won a wage increase of $9.

On March 12 The International Tailoring Company
locked out cutters because they organized and asked for a
wage increase. A settlement was reached the following day
in which an increase of $4 was granted. The week before
the cutters had received a raise of $2.

On March 13 City Tailors granted 10 per cent, increase
following a previous raise of 15 per cent.

In the Hart, Schaffner and Marx Company wages re-
mained stable during this period. The result of these shop
strikes was the signing of a general agreement covering all
of the Chicago market with the exception of Hart, Schaffner
and Marx. That firm retained its original agreement. The
new agreement provided for wage increases as follows :

" All the piece work sections shall be classified by each house
according to the average weekly earnings of each section, tak-
ing all the workers of each section in all the shops of each

FULL-TIME WEEKLY EARNINGS OF MALE WORKERS, TAILOR SHOPS, 1911.

Distribution by Wage Groups — Source: U. S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Bulletin 135.

AND

UNDER (HIDER UNDCR URDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

0

$

FULL-TIME WEEKLY EARNINGS OF MALE WORKERS, TAILOR SHOPS, 1919.
Distribution by Wage Groups — Source : Impartial Chairman.

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

70
60
50

30

tDNDEB 5AND IDAND ISANDTQAND ?5AND3()AND35AND40AND 45AND5QAND SJANDgQAND ftAHD
-P UMOfR UNDER UHDER UNDER UHDCR WDER UNDfR UNDER UHDfR UHOfR UNDER UHDfR OVER

3. FULL-TIME WEEKLY EARNINGS OF FEMALE WORKERS, TAILOR SHOPS, 1911
Distribution by Wage Groups — Source: U. S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics, Bulletin 135.

70
60
50
40
30
ZO
10

0
$

4. FULL-TIME WEEKLY EARNINGS OF FEMALE WORKERS, TAILOR SHOPS, 1911
Distribution by Wage Groups — Source: Impartial Chairman.

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

UNDER UNDER UMDfR UNDER UNDER UNDft UNDfR UNDER UNDER

AW) HAND
1DER OVER

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

0
$

WAGES AND HOURS, 1911-1921 187

house as a unit. For the purpose of this classification the
average earnings for each complete section for the latest four
full weeks (eliminating overtime) shall be taken.

" To the piece rates of all sections, the average earnings in
which are $28 or under, an increase of 20 per cent, shall be
added.

" To the piece rates of all sections, the average earnings in
which are over $28.01 to $37.00, an increase of 15 per cent,
shall be added.

" To the piece work rates of all sections, the average earn-
ings in which are over $37.01, an increase of 10 per cent, shall
be added.

" All week workers in tailor shops (excluding all superin-
tendents, foremen, section heads and their assistants, and all
learners employed less than three months in the trade) shall
receive an increase, in addition to their wage rates, of $5.00
per week.

" All cutters, now receiving a wage of $31 per week or less,
shall receive an increase of $5.00 per week, and all who are
receiving more than $31 shall receive an increase of $4 per
week.

" All experienced clothing cutters (excluding apprentices),
hired after July 3rd, shall receive a wage of $37.00 per week.
All regular cutters, excluding apprentices, whose wages, after
having received the increases as herein provided, shall be less
than $37.00, shall receive a further increase of $1.00 per month
until their wages equal $37.00 per week.

" All trimmers in the trimming department shall receive an
addition of $5.00 per week to their weekly wage rates."

In Hart, Schaffner and Marx, the same raises were
granted to the workers by agreement between the union and
the firm. The wage adjustment in this house also was made
retroactive, as in the other houses in the market, to .Tune 1,
1919.

The post-armistice boom in general business was then in
full swing. In the clothing industry, particularly, there was
unusual activity. Retail prices for clothing were going up
by leaps and bounds because of the heavy demand by con-
sumers. The cost of living was rising rapidly. Under these
circumstances, many clothing workers could have made indi-
vidual bargains which would have been extremely favorable
to themselves. The union, however, took the position that

138 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

all gains should be made by collective bargaining. It held
that wage adjustments should be made through the union
and that such wage adjustments should so far as possible be
made so as to benefit all the workers of the market and not
only particular individuals. It accordingly took steps to
stabilize rates of wages. During the fall season of 1919,
the workers in the Chicago market again demonstrated their
solidarity and their discipline by supporting the union's
position.

At the close of this season and before the spring manu-
facturing season opened, the union presented to the manu-
facturers the demand of the workers in the market for wage
increases. The employers asked for arbitration. The pro-
ceedings came before the Board of Arbitration under the
" emergency " clause of the agreement. At the conclusion
of the hearings, the Board of Arbitration awarded increases
to become effective December 15, 1919. The details of the
wage adjustment were as follows:

"An increase of twenty per cent. (20%) shall be given to
sections or occupations where the average earnings or wages
on a forty-four hour basis are thirty dollars or less per week,
and five per cent. (5%) to sections where the average earnings,
on a forty-four hour basis are fifty dollars or more per week.

" An increase equivalent to $6.00 per week shall be given to
sections where the average earnings are from $30.00 to $50.00
per week. An increase of 20 % shall be given to all week work-
ers now receiving less than $30.00 per week; an increase of
$6.00 per week to week workers now receiving from $30.00 to
$49.99 per week; and an increase of 5% to week workers now
receiving $50.00 or more per week.

" In piece work sections, the equivalent of the increase shall
be calculated and added to the existing piece rates."

The chairman of the Board of Arbitration in his decision
in this case pointed out that labor is entitled to improve its
standards of living, and that to make increases proportionate
only to the rise in the cost of living would defeat the workers'
opportunity for progressive improvement. The Board also
recognized the seasonal character of the clothing industry

WAGES AND HOURS, 1911-1921 139

and the greater risk undertaken by the worker because of
seasonal variations in employment. This risk, the chairman
held, should be taken into account in determining wages.

It is of interest to note in connection with the general
award of December, 1919, that the Board of Arbitration in
its decision followed the practice begun in 1916 by the Amal-
gamated, of rewarding the workers in the poorly paid sec-
tions most and giving relatively less to the others.

In addition to the increases specifically granted in the
Board's decision, provision was made for increasing the earn-
ings of those groups whose earnings still remained below
the prevailing market levels.

A minimum wage for learners in tailoring shops was not
fixed in the decision but was referred to a special commis-
sion for determination. Acting on the report of this com-
mission, the Board) of Arbitration fixed a standard minimum
wage for learners of $15.00 a week, effective April 12, 1920.
This minimum of $15.00 a week was based in part on the
$16.00 minimum for apprentice cutters also established by
the Board of Arbitration on February 20, 1920. The mini-
mum for apprentice cutters, however, had been a matter of
discussion before the December, 1919, decision and had been
submitted to a joint committee of employers and employees
for settlement. When this committee failed to reach an
agreement, the question was settled by the Board of Arbitra-
tion. The minimum for apprentice cutters was made retro-
active to become effective October 1, 1919, for all ap-
prentices appointed after July 9, 1919.

The award of December, 1919, provided for the appoint-
ment of a commission to fix standards of production in the
cutting rooms of the Chicago market. The chairman of the
Board at that time indicated that, when these standards had
been fixed, the cutters should receive a further increase in
addition to the $6.00 a week given them in the award of
December, 1919. A partial report of the cutters' commis-
sion was made to the Board of Arbitration on March 2,
1920. The group standards of production set by the com-
mission were approved by the Board and a minimum stan-

140 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

dard wage of $45.00 fixed. But the Board in the following
terms defined the conditions under which the increase should
actually be paid:

" The Board decides that these standards should be effective
immediately on notification to the several houses. It further
announces that beginning with Monday, March 8, the minimum
standard for cutters will be $45.00. This same date will be
regarded as the date for the whole Chicago industry, but no
increase shall be actually paid to the cutters of any house until
standards have been set in that house. The reason for fixing
this date for all houses before some of them have actually had
standards fixed by the Commission is to avoid unfairness due to
delay in the case of the houses visited last."

The increase effective March 8, 1920, was confined largely
to cutters employed in special order houses. In a later
decision, October 28, 1920, the Board said in further inter-
pretation of its decision :

" This minimum standard of wage was intended to accom-
pany a standard of production which would be fixed for the
several houses by the commission. The intent of the decision,
it ought to be unnecessary to state, was not that every cutter
in every house should receive $45.00 irrespective of his pro-
duction, but that every cutter (or every group of cutters where
a group standard has been set) conforming to the standard
set for the particular house in question should receive the
$45.00."

The clothing industry was one of the first industries to
\ feel the effects of the industrial depression of 1920-1921.
Sales of clothing began to fall off in April, 1920. Never-
theless, the cost of living continued to rise so that by July,
1920, the worker found himself receiving virtually 10 per
cent, less because rates of wages had remained stationary
while the prices of food and other necessities had increased.
Despite the bad business outlook, the union felt it its duty
to present the needs of the workers first to the manufacturers
and then to the Board of Arbitration. It was apparent,
however, that the clothing industry had already been hard
hit by the industrial depression. The Board of Arbitration
therefore ruled that no increase of wages would be justified

5. FULL-TIME WEEKLY EARNINGS OF CUTTERS, 1911.

Distribution by Wage Groups — Source: U. S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Bulletin 185.

70

60
50

30
20
10

0

$«w"SB

70
60
50
40
30
ZO
10

0
$

6. FULL-TIME WEEKLY EARNINGS OF CUTTERS, 1919.
Distribution by Wage Groups — Source : Impartial Chairman.

UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNOtR UNDER UNDfR UNDLR UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER

7. FULL-TIME WEEKLY EARNINGS or ALL WOEKERS IN TAILOR
SHOPS, AND CUTTERS, COMBINED, 1911.

Distribution by Wage Groups — Source: U. S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Bulletin 185.

$

8. FULL-TIME WEEKLY EARNINGS OF ALL WORKERS IN TAILOR
SHOPS, AND CUTTERS, COMBINED, 1919.

Distribution by Wage Groups — Source : Impartial Chairman.

70
60
50

30
20
10

0

$-»EM

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

mm urns mm mm imn urn

35AND40*ND 45ANO 5QAND SjAHD gQAMO 65 AW d-

: miS. UNDER UHDtt UNDfR UNDtt WIDER OVER *

0

WAGES AND HOURS, 1911-1921 141

at that time (August, 1920). It ordered, however, the
appointment of a commission to study the problem of unem-
ployment in the industry.

Conditions in industry generally during 1920 became
progressively worse. Industries, one by one, were affected
by the general depression in industry and by the economic
collapse of Europe. The slowing down of industry was im-
mediately accompanied by sharp wage cuts in unorganized
industries. Of all the industries, clothing and textiles had
been hit first and hardest. The employers took advantage of
lack of organization among the workers in the textile in-
dustries and reduced wages 22% per cent. In the Chicago
clothing market, manufacturers presented a demand to the
union for a reduction of 25 per cent. On the union's objec-
tion, the case went to the Board of Arbitration for decision.
A preliminary conference was held early in March and pub-
lic hearings on March 23 and 24. On April 16, 1921, the
decision was announced. It provided that workers in tailor-
ing sections, who had been increased in December, 1919, by
approximately 20 per cent, should suffer a reduction of 10
per cent, and that those workers who had received a 5 per
cent, increase in December, 1919, should be reduced by the
same amount, namely 5 per cent.

By the decision of the chairman of the Board of Arbitra-
tion the workers in the more poorly paid sections suffered
the largest reductions. In this respect it reversed the prac-
tice first begun in 1916 of giving greater advances to the
lower paid workers than to the higher paid workers. The
chairman, however, held that since the workers in the higher
sections had received only a 5 per cent, increase in Decem-
ber, 1919, that a larger cut in the wages of these workers
would bring their wages below the standard arrived at by
agreement between the manufacturers and the union. An
arbitrator, the chairman held, was not justified in reducing
wages below the level agreed upon in joint negotiation.

The decision also held that no reduction should be made in
the wages of the cutters. The chairman, in fact, stated
that the average cutter should receive $45.00 a week. Cut-

142 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

ters were classified into five groups with; wages ranging from
$41.00 to $49.00 a week. Inclusion in a higher or lower
wage class was made dependent on output. The adminis-
tration of this part of the decision was entrusted to a cut-
ters' commission, composed of representatives of both parties,
working under the direction of the Chairman of the Board of
Arbitration.

This brief review of wages has necessarily included only
general wage adjustments affecting the whole market. Data
are not available relating to changes in individual sections.
It is possible, however, to measure the earnings in 1920 of
the clothing workers of Chicago. The following table,
taken from figures submitted by the employers in the arbi-
tration proceedings of March, 1921, shows, for the larger
houses of the city, the average earnings of men and women
in a 44-hour week of uninterrupted employment in the sum-
mer of 1920:

AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES, 1920.
Firm. Male. Female.

House

A

$51

50

$37 . 48

tt

B

47

79

34.23

a

c

47

79

33.84

a

D

49

79,

34.85

a

E

52

73

44.25

a

F

57

P8

40.78

«

G

49

918

36.45

tt

H

53

54

41.12

Differences that appear in average wages in the various
houses do not entirely reflect differences in the earning power
of the piece-work rates. Earnings of piece-workers may and
do vary considerably because of interruptions in the flow
of work and differences in standards of quality.

The figures submitted by the manufacturers present a
picture of wage conditions in 1920. It takes only a com-
parison of these figures with the statistics compiled by the

WAGES AND HOURS, 1911-1921 143

government in 1911 to show the gains made by the workers
since they organized eleven years ago:

AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS, 1911 AND 1920.

Full Time
Weekly
Earnings.

Hours Per
Full Time
Week.

Men Workers —
1911

$14.64

54

1920

48 . 44

44

Women Workers —
1911

$10.10

54

1920

34.31

44

Of course, the value of a dollar in 1911, measured in the
amount of food and other necessities which it could pur-
chase, was much greater than in 1920. Nevertheless, making
all allowances for changes in prices it is clear that the gain
in wages achieved largely through organization of the
workers has been a substantial one. The wage of the cloth-
ing worker is no longer barely enough to keep body and soul
together as it was when the union came into being. To-day,
the clothing worker does not have to depend upon charity
during the slack season as did many ing the years before 1911.
The organized Chicago clothing worker has won much for
himself, his family and his fellows.

Remarkable as has been the progress of the clothing
worker since he has organized, it has not been progress of
the worker at the expense of the industry. The percentage
of labor cost in the garment to-day is not greater than it was
in 1915. In fact, much of the advance in wages has resulted
from the greater efficiency of the market. The Chicago
clothing industry to-day is as far ahead of the industry in
1910-1911 as are the wages of the worker to-day ahead of
the wages of the unorganized worker of 1910. The good
will and efficiency of the workers have contributed in full
measure to this progress.

CHAPTER VIII

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS

IN recent years, as the impartial machinery has become
more firmly established and has been extended to include the
entire Chicago clothing market, almost all of the changes in
general market wage levels have been made by decision of
the Board of Arbitration. The settlement of the problems
of market wage levels by arbitration decision has not done
away with the process of direct negotiation between the union
representatives and the representatives of the manufac-
turers. In the arbitration of wages in the Chicago market
there has always been adequate interchange of views be-
tween the two parties concerned before, during, and after
the public hearing.

Wage arbitrations and particularly the public hearings
held as a part of the proceedings have played a very prom-
inent part in the history of wages in the Chicago clothing
market. The method of determining wage levels for the
market after hearing, discussion and by arbitration decision
has been an important factor in building up the collective
bargaining process and securing stability in wage levels.
Under this plan wage levels have been adjusted not for the
workers in a single section or even for an individual shop but
for the market as a whole and with some regard for the inter-
relation of markets. •

Wage arbitration has also tended to lessen change in levels
arising from shifting of the bargaining power of the parties
during a manufacturing season. In a seasonal industry such
considerations are peculiarly important. The procedure of
wage arbitrations developed in Chicago has placed emphasis
on the permanent factors rather than seasonal influences
affecting the wage problem and has thus placed a firmer
foundation under the wage structure of the market. In this

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 145

way the great wage arbitrations have helped to give the
stability sought for by the union.

From another standpoint wage arbitrations in the Chicago
market are important. The Board of Arbitration has de-
rived its authority to fix wages from the so-called " emer-
gency clause " of the agreement. This clause reads as fol-
lows:

" If there shall be a general change in wages or hours in the
clothing industry, which shall be sufficiently permanent to
warrant the belief that the change is not temporary, then the
Board shall have power to determine whether such change is of
so extraordinary a nature as to justify a consideration of the
question of making a change in the present agreement, and, if
so, then the Board shall have power to make such changes in
wages or hours as in its judgment shall be proper."

Wages having been usually fixed by direct negotiation
when the agreements are entered into, the Board may be said
to be called upon, in a sense, to determine what changes are
" proper." In the absence of a generally agreed upon stand-
ard of " proper " wages, the several proceedings in Chicago
illustrate the limitations which the Chairman of the Board of
Arbitration have themselves placed upon their own authority
to fix wages.

The Board of Arbitration, set up under the agreement
between the union and the manufacturers in Chicago, func-
tions continuously during the life of the agreement. More-
over, although the Hart, Schaffner and Marx Company has
a separate agreement and separately constituted impartial
arbitration" machinery, the personnel of the Board of Arbi-
tration of the Hart, Schaffner and Marx agreement and of
the general market is the same. In the wage arbitrations be-
ginning with December, 1919, all manufacturers have been
represented and a single proceeding has been held for the
whole market. The permanent character of the Board of
Arbitration has permitted the appointment of special com-
missions to report on questions raised in wage arbitrations
which require detailed study for later decision by the Board
without delaying an immediate decision on other issues.
Commissions have also been appointed to work out the de-

146 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

tailed application of wage awards, when that procedure has
been necessary to carry out the full intent of the Board's
decisions. These commissions are usually composed of rep-
resentatives of the employers and of the union and an im-
partial chairman. They have contributed much to the suc-
cess of wage arbitration in the market.

These public discussions of wages, moreover, have had an
important educational value. Workers have learned much
about their industry and about industrial conditions gen-
erally. They have become aware of the individual working-
man's position in the market, and of the relation of the
Chicago market to the whole clothing industry of the
country. Manufacturers, likewise, have seen the plane of
wage controversies raised to new levels, where facts counted
more than fancy. And the public has been granted an in-
sight into the operations of a typical industry, which has
proved invaluable as a basis for forming sound judgments
on the character of industrial conflicts.

Strictly speaking, the arbitration method was resorted to
in the determination of wages in 1911 when the first agree-
ment was signed in the Chicago market, and again in 1913 in
settling certain questions involving major working condi-
tions. But it was not until 1917 that a request for a general
increase in wages was submitted to the regularly established
Board of Arbitration, and it has only been since the general
agreement, including all manufacturers of men's clothing in
the Chicago market, was signed in May, 1919, that wage
arbitration has been the regular practice in the market.

In the arbitration of wages in 1917 the only workers
affected directly were those of Hart, Schaffner and Marx,
which alone at that time recognized and dealt with the Amal-
gamated. It will be recalled that in May, 1916, the union
secured an increase when the agreement with the Hart,
Schaffner and Marx Company for a three-year period ending
April 30, 1919, became effective. Because of the continued
rise in the cost of living the union raised the question of a
general wage increase shortly after the beginning of the fall
manufacturing season of 1917. The union asked for a gen-

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 147

eral advance in the wage level to make up for the loss result-
ing from higher prices for the necessaries of life. Higher
wages were also asked because there had already occurred
wage increases in the clothing industry and in other in-
dustries.

The company, while admitting that the cost of living had
risen since the wage adjustment made by the 1916 agree-
ment, contended that the average earnings of the workers,
particularly of piece workers, had in fact increased from 30
to 35 per cent. The company pointed out that as a result
of the greater volume of employment earnings had risen
though wage levels had remained constant. It held, also,
that to grant a wage increase after the prices of the fall
season had been fixed and sales had been made on the basis
of these prices would be unfair. The company would lose
the entire amount of the increase granted the workers as
sales had already been made, and it would have no opportun-
ity to pass the increased burden of higher wages on to the
consumers. Properly the company maintained increased
wages should be added to the cost of the goods and should not
come out of the company's margin between the cost of pro-
duction and selling price.

The Board of Arbitration ruled that the workers had
already suffered heavily in the diminished purchasing power
of their wages. While admitting, in principle, the employ-
ers' claims, it held that the emergency was such that an im-
mediate increase in wages was warranted. The Board of
Arbitration awarded to the workers a general advance in
wages. The wages of all workers, except cutters, were in-
creased by 10 per cent. The wages of the cutters were in-
creased a fixed amount — $2.35 per week — which was ap-
proximately 10 per cent, of the average weekly earnings of
the cutters at that time.

The Board further ruled that any request for wage ad-
justments during the term of the agreement must be made in
advance of sales for the season affected. Thus the Board
recognized the contention of the employer that he should
have the opportunity to pass wage adjustments on to the

148 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

consumers. The opinion of the Board of Arbitration in this
case, given June 2, 1917, is as follows:

" The claims of the workers were explained to the Board by
Mr. Sidney Hillman, international president of the Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America. He stated that the ap-
plication was made primarily because of the enormously in-
creased cost of living which had so diminished the purchasing
power of money that it was virtually equivalent to a reduction
in wages. He stated also that in response to this condition
wages had been generally advanced in the clothing industry,
that so far as human foresight could perceive the condition
was a permanent one, and that the extraordinary situation
which existed fully met the requirements of the provision of the
agreement under which application for a readjustment of wages
was brought. He made no specific demand, nor did he expect
a full equivalent for the losses sustained by the workers by
reason of war prices and conditions, but he maintained that a
measure of relief should be granted, and the workers should
not be required to bear all the burden of a common calamity.

" The company, through its representatives, acknowledged
the claim of increased cost of living but called attention to the
fact that since 1915 the average earnings of the people had
increased from thirty to thirty-five per cent., due to the fuller
employment brought about by a larger volume of business.

" More important, however, was the fact that the goods in
the process of manufacture for the fall season were already sold
at prices that were agreed on before the present claim was
made, and this fact should be taken into consideration by the
arbitrators in adjudicating the case.

" The Board of Arbitration approaches the decision of the
question submitted to it with a deep sense of responsibility.
The cause of our common distress is a national calamity which
it is not in the power of the Board to remove or ameliorate.
All that it has power to do is to readjust the burden so that it
may not fall too heavily on the weaker party.

" It admits the truth of the claim that any advance granted
in mid-season must come out of the company, and it recognizes
the fact that ordinarily, increased wages should be added to
the cost of the goods, and passed on to the consumer. But this
is an extraordinary occasion. The workers have already suf-
fered heavily in the diminished purchasing power of their wages
and throughout the clothing and other industries wage increases
have been made in response to the war prices which afflict the
country. The Board believes that, on reflection, the company

Leo Krzycki

Nettie Richardson

Jack Kroll Emilio Grandinetti

National Organizers, Chicago Campaign, 1919

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 149

can hardly expect to pass through the present war crisis and
not share a part of the loss which falls so heavily on its work-
ers, and, indeed, on all members of the community. It accord-
ingly decides that the company shall give its workers a general
advance of ten per cent, to be paid in the following manner :

" All workers under the jurisdiction of this Board, except the
cutters, shall receive a horizontal advance in wages of ten per
cent., to take effect July 1, 1917.

" The cutters shall receive an equivalent of ten per cent, con-
verted into a uniform flat weekly increase, which is agreed to
be $2.35 per week for each cutter, whether temporary or per-
manent, and also apprentices. In view of the fact that other
departments have received more direct advances of wages than
the cutters, it is decided that the cutters' increase shall go into
effect June 1, 1917.

" It is decided that these increases shall be recorded separate-
ly by the company ; that it shall take the place of the increase
of pay asked for on behalf of the week workers in the tailor
shops ; and in the event of any other claim being made under
the emergency clause of the agreement, that such claims must
be made in advance of sales for the affected season being made
by the company in order to be entitled to recognition by the
Board of Arbitration.

" In the case of week-workers, the increase shall be calcu-
lated from the payroll of the last week in May, 1917."

FIRST MARKET WAGE ARBITRATION, DECEMBER, 1919

The first wage arbitration covering the whole Chicago
market was held in December, 1919. All the firms in the
market under agreement with the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers participated. The case was filed on December 9th,
a formal hearing was held on December 13th and decision _/.
was made on the 22d of the same month.

The union presented as reasons for a wage increase:

1. The increased cost of living.

2. The need for improvement in standards of living.

3. The great demand for labor in this industry which would
have permitted greatly increased wages by bargains made by
individual workers had not the union stabilized and moderated
rates of wages during the previous manufacturing season.

4. The increases of wages already granted workers in the
men's clothing industry in other cities.

150 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

5. The increased efficiency of the industry resulting from
constant production not interrupted by strikes or other indus-
trial disturbances. Costs had been reduced by eliminating the
waste resulting from such disturbances. The union had also
made an important social contribution in maintaining order and
peace in industry in the midst of greatly disturbed conditions
in the labor world. It held[ that the policy pursued by the
union should properly be considered in the fixing of wages.

6. The efficiency which the Chicago market derives from
being a piece work market.

The union in Chicago had brought the matter of increased
wages to the Board of Arbitration after increases had already
been granted in the principal clothing markets of the country
through negotiation. The union, therefore, in this instance
primarily rested its case upon the increase in the cost of liv-
ing since May, 1919, and the increase of wages granted in
the other markets. At the same time, however, the union
raised a number of new points to which it directed attention.

It should be recalled that at this time prices of all com-
modities were rising rapidly. Charges of profiteering were
frequent in all industries. Many of these charges were
directed against the men's clothing industry. In many in-
stances, not alone in the clothing industry but in other in-
dustries as well, high prices were attributed to profiteering
by labor. The union, therefore, welcomed the opportunity
afforded by the public hearing to bring to the attention of the
public the significant facts as they were in the clothing
industry.

The union told of the policy it had made effective in the
Chicago clothing industry of stabilizing and moderating
rates of wages during the fall manufacturing season of 1919
when there was an extraordinary demand for workers. Dur-
ing that season it had not permitted workers to secure ad-
vances which, because of the circumstances then prevailing,
they would have been able to secure by individual bargaining.
The union prevented the individual worker from holding up
production by asking for a wage increase, and insisted that
all increases and improvements in working conditions should
be made by collective bargaining. Market conditions were

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 151

thus stabilized. The union had consistently held to this
policy at a time when prices were rising in all lines of trade,
including clothing, and when the margins of manufacturers
and retailers were increasing rapidly. This policy of stabiliz-
ing wage conditions did much for the principle of collective
bargaining in the Chicago market and set a firm foundation
for the impartial machinery, then only beginning its work.

Moreover, the union pointed out that the increased effi-
ciency of the clothing industry and of the Chicago market, in
particular resulting from the policy adopted and carried out
by the union, justified an increase in wages. The policy of
the union for order and peace in the industry had been of
great value. It had maintained constant production. It had
stabilized market conditions. It had developed good- will
and a sense of responsibility on the part of the workers. All
of these factors had tended to reduce costs in a period when
other costs and prices were being pyramided sky high. The
worker, the union contended, had made this contribution to
the efficiency of the industry and was entitled to share in the
savings which had resulted therefrom.

The extension of piece work in Chicago had also put this
market in a position to pay its workers certainly as much as
they were being paid in less efficient markets. Finally, the
union pointed out that the workers in the industry are
entitled to a progressive improvement in their standard of
living, provided the industry could afford to meet such
standards.

The position of the employers, on the other hand, was that
the Board of Arbitration should not at that time allow wage
increases because :

1. Increases in wages in the industry had more than kept
pace with increased cost of living.

2. Whatever may have been true of the demand for labor
and the consequent market rate of wages, there was at that
time a paramount duty to the public not to increase the cost
of necessaries of life unless there was a real exigency, which
in this case did not exist.

3. Employes in this industry were in a highly favorable
condition as compared with those in other industries, both

152 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

national and local, when it was realized that only about one-
third of those employed were heads of families.

4. Since deflation was bound to come sooner or later, every
increase which adds to costs has a tendency in the wrong direc-
tion, and will make the inevitable shrinkage more keenly felt.

5. The indirect effects on prices and industry of any in-
crease in wages at this time ought to be considered.

6. Local conditions in the Chicago market, both within the
industry and in the relation of this to other industries, made
any change undesirable from the point of view of the best inter-
ests of the agreement into which many of the firms had just
recently entered.

The Board of Arbitration asked for and secured from both
the manufacturers and the union statistics showing compara-
tive earnings for the full time 44-hour week in Chicago and
in other markets ; wage increases granted in the market since
1913; changes in the cost of living as reported by govern-
ment agencies; age and marital condition of workers with
special reference to the number of their dependents; and
comparisons of wages in clothing with other Chicago in-
dustries. In this arbitration proceeding for the first time,
studies of earnings and wage rates in the Chicago and other
clothing markets were made. The collection of these valu-
able data was itself a large contribution to the knowledge of
wages and working conditions in one of the important organ-
ized industries of the country.

The decision of the arbitrator, Prof. James H. Tufts, is
of particular significance for its penetrating analysis of the
issues presented by both employers and employees. There
had been increases granted in competing markets. There
had been an increase in the cost of living since the agreement
was signed in May. The arbitrator might have based his
decision for an increase solely on these two points. He
seized the opportunity, however, to discuss certain of the
underlying implications in the wage problem and to bring to
the attention of the industry and the public in very illuminat-
ing fashion the conditions in the clothing industry under the
agreement as they affected the worker, the industry, and the
consumer.

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 153

It was the arbitrator's opinion that the main question in-
volved was whether a group of workers should be permitted
under the agreement between the employes and the manu-
facturers to avail itself of its bargaining strength for the
purpose of securing progressive improvements in its standard
of living. To this question the chairman made the following
answer :

" In answering this question, the Board believes that it must
be governed largely, although not exclusively, by the prevailing
principles and policies of the country as embodied in its insti-
tutions. In endeavoring to give a just decision, the Board
does not feel warranted in setting up a standard too widely at
variance with our present social and economic order.

" The principles and policies of the United States are, with
certain qualifications, those of individualism, or the competitive
system. This means that prices, wages and profits are fixed
by bargaining under the forces of supply and demand. This
general principle is qualified and limited in the case of ' property
affected with a public interest,' such as railways. In private,
as distinguished from public or semi-public business and in-
dustry, there is a moral disapproval on the one hand for such
extremely low wages as make a decent standard of living impos-
sible, and, on the other hand, for extreme increases in the
prices of necessaries of life, but there is no general disapproval
of the general principle of profiting by market conditions. In
time of national emergency, we used the word * profiteer ' to
condemn taking advantage of the country's need for an un-
reasonable private gain. But in ordinary time, there is as yet
no recognized standard for the fairness of prices of various
goods, or for relative wages in different industries, other than
what bargainers agree upon. This method may often fail to
give justice as measured by various other standards of merit
or desert. But for the most part, labor has had to bargain
for its wages, and it cannot be expected to forego entirely the
advantages which market conditions now afford.

" Coming, then, to the specific concrete situation which con-
fronts us, we have the outstanding fact that very substantial
increases to clothing workers have been granted in all the other
principal markets in this country and Canada, and in many
less important centers. These increases have usually been five
or six dollars a week; in some cases, they have been more. In
these days when both employers and workers know of such
increases and plan accordingly, it is not practicable to treat

154 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the Chicago market as an entirely distinct situation to be judged
on its own merits, without reference to what is going on else-
where in the country."

The Board also pointed out that it would be unfair to
adopt the position taken by the employers and regulate only
the use of bargaining power by labor. To adopt such an
attitude would be in effect, to regulate labor and let capital,
management and retailers take advantage of market condi-
tions without any restraint. Such actions would be tanta-
mount to setting up a moral standard for labor alone and
none for management or capital.

" It may be said," wrote Chairman Tufts, " in the first place,
that if there is to be public regulation of any industry or moral
judgment upon wages or prices, this should apply to every
stage in the production and marketing; it applies to profits as
well as to labor. It must consider not merely figures as to
prices and wages, but the actual efficiency or wastefulness of the
methods of production and marketing."

Moreover, if the bargaining power of labor alone were
controlled it is doubtful whether the consuming public for
whose benefit the control was presumed to be exercised,
would receive the advantage from such control. For the
" prices of clothing," the decision held, " have advanced and
are certain to be further advanced whatever may be the
decision of this case." Prices did advance. The Board rec-
ognized the competitive nature of the clothing industry and
the fact that prices were not fixed for the Chicago market
alone but for the entire industry and that the increase in
the labor cost in the manufacture of clothing would mean
only a relatively small increase in the total cost when sold
at retail.

After disposing of the main question, Professor Tufts
took occasion to discuss two other important aspects of the
wage problem in the men's clothing industry. In the first
place, he said, the seasonal character of the clothing industry,
in which there is no guarantee against unemployment, must
be taken into account. In such an industry there must be
the same recognition of the principle that greater risk en-

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 155

titles the worker to higher wages just as it is generally con-
ceded that capital is entitled to greater profits in an industry
where the risk is greater than in an industry where capital is
secure and its returns stable.

In the second place, the Board of Arbitration considered
itself under obligation to reward the contribution of the
union in its insistence on wage stabilization. This policy has
resulted in continuous production and peace and order in the
industry. " The industry," said Chairman Tufts, " as now
organized under agreements which aim to substitute reason
for force, is performing an important public service." This
public service, the Board held, must be considered in fixing
wages.

The specific terms of the award were :

" Beginning December 15, 1919, an increase shall be added
to the piece-and wage-rates now in existence under the agree-
ments, in the shops of the firms and their contractors. The
new rates thus established shall prevail up to June 1st, 1920,
except when detailed changes may be ordered by the Board of
Arbitration on recommendation of either of the Trade Boards.

" The increase shall be applied as follows :

"An increase of twenty per cent. (20%) shall be given to
sections or occupations where the average earnings or wages
on a forty-four hour basis are thirty dollars or less per week,
and five per cent. (5%) to sections where the average earnings
on a forty-four hour basis are fifty dollars or more per week.
An increase equivalent to $6.00 per week shall be given to sec-
tions where the average earnings are from $30.00 to $49.99
per week.

" An increase of 20% shall be given to all week workers now
receiving less than $30.00 per week; an increase of $6.00 per
week to week workers now receiving $50.00 or more per week.

" In piece work sections, the equivalent of the increase shall
be calculated and added to the existing piece rates."

In addition to the specific increases above granted, the
Board ruled it was its purpose to bring the earnings of
underpaid sections up to the market level and that it would
grant further increases to such sections. A commission
known as the " Leveling Commission " was created. This

156 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

commission was authorized to investigate relative disparities
in rates now existing in the market, and to make recommen-
dations for increases to sections earning less than the market
level. This recommendation fixed market norms for many of
the operations. The work was completed March 15, 1920.
It was the intent of the commission to fix piece work rates
that would yield to the worker equal earnings for equal effort
and skill. The work of the " Leveling Commission," there-
fore, resulted in a large measure of wage standardization.

Another commission was created under the chairmanship
of Dr. Millis, with equal representation of employers and
workers, to determine standards of production for cutters
and to make recommendations for a standard wage for these
workers. Group standards of production for cutters and
a scale of $45, to become effective when the group standards
were made effective, was recommended by the commission
and approved by the Board of Arbitration in March, 1920.

The award did not fix a minimum wage for inexperienced
workers in the tailor shops. It, however, provided for a
commission to go into the matter more fully and make a
report to the Board of Arbitration. In March, 1920, the
Board approved the recommendation of the commission
that a minimum wage of $15.00 per week be paid to learners
" employed less than three months in the trade." A minimum
wage for workers in the cutting and trimming rooms was
already in effect.

AN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND

Early in 1920 the union turned its attention to the prob-
lem of unemployment. At that time industry, generally, in
the United States was operating at capacity. The clothing
industry, although generally regarded as a seasonal industry
under ordinary conditions, had been active continuously
without seasonal lulls for several years. In the early months
of 1920 there were no signs of an interruption in the indus-
trial activity of the country. The union officials realized,
however, that it is just at such a time that preparations
must be made to meet the problem of unemployment which

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 157

had recurred in the past from time to time and which would
undoubtedly recur in the future. In previous years the
clothing worker had been subject to more or less regular
periods of unemployment every year because of seasonal
fluctuations that affected the men's clothing industry alone,
and to longer but less regular periods of unemployment
arising from general industrial depressions. The union
therefore, early in 1920, undertook to present a plan for
the solution of this most important problem. At the biennial
convention of the Amalgamated in May, 1920, a resolution
which stated the union's position in the following terms was
adopted :

" Justice dictates that the industry, which depends upon the
workers to keep alive, should take care of them when they are
unemployed.

" That can be done only by the creation of a special fund for
the payment of unemployment wages ; no gift and no alms, but
wages from the industry to the worker. There is no reason
why the industry, which pays a permanent tax to the various
insurance companies in order to indemnify the employer in case
of an emergency, should not likewise have a permanent fund
for indemnification for lack of work. The welfare of the work-
ers in the industry should be entitled to at least as much con-
sideration as the property of the employer.

" The Committee, therefore, recommends that the convention
go on record in favor of the creation of an unemployment fund.
It is our opinion that such a fund should be created by the
weekly payment by the employers of a given percentage of the
payroll of our members, which shall not be deducted from the
payroll but paid into the fund in addition to the payroll."

This resolution empowered the general executive board
to work out methods for the administration of such a fund
and authorized the executive board to take such steps as
it thought necessary to bring this matter to the attention of
the industry.

At the close of the spring manufacturing season of 1920
there was a sharp falling off in the sales of clothing at retail.
The result was an almost immediate curtailment of activity
in the men's clothing industry. Workers in the Chicago
market, particularly those paid on a piece basis, had much

158 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

less work. Though wage rates remained the same, the earn-
ings of workers were necessarily greatly lessened. On the
other hand, the cost of living was still rising and continued
to rise until by late spring it was fully ten per cent, higher
than in December, 1919. The Chicago clothing workers
were faced with the problem of making both ends meet when
their earnings were falling and prices rising.

The union therefore presented to the Board of Arbitration
the request of its membership for relief. The union asked
for an increase in wages to compensate the workers for the
loss in the purchasing power of their wages resulting from
the rise in prices, and for the establishment of an unemploy-
ment insurance fund, as had been urged by the biennial
convention in May. Emphasis in the arbitration proceed-
ings that followed was placed upon the second proposal,
namely, .that providing for an unemployment fund. Hear-
ings were held before the Board of Arbitration on July 1st
and 2nd. At these hearings the union presented a compre-
hensive brief reviewing the whole problem of unemployment
in the men's clothing industry. The union supported its
demand for a fund by an analysis of the rights of the work-
ers and of the manner in which such a fund would reduce
the volume of unemployment.

1. Unemployment is beyond the control of the workers. It
is due in large measure to conditions under which the industry
is carried on. Its cost is therefore properly chargeable against
industry Just as any other element in the cost of production.
The cost of unemployment. compensation is comparable in kind
to such other elements in costs as wages, maintenance expense-
for plant and machinery and costs incurred for industrial acci-
dents.

2. The cost of unemployment must be met from a fund,
established and supported by the industry and segregated for
the purpose of meeting that cost alone. In this way, only, can
the burden of the cost be sufficiently felt by those who are in a
position to take steps to reduce it. It is a cardinal principle in
social insurance that specific allocation of the responsibility and
burden is an indispensable first step in the eradication of the
evil.

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 159

The argument of the union was similar to that made
by Mr. Bevin of the English dockers before the British
court of inquiry into the wages and conditions of dock
labor. Mr. Bevin, in summarizing the case for unemploy-
ment compensation for the dockers, said: ' If it is moral
to have maintenance charges for docks then it is equally
moral to have maintenance for labor." The union also
argued that the experience of the workmen's compensation
laws had shown that specific allocation of responsibility for
accidents upon employers had already done much to stimu-
late the movement for the prevention of accidents in indus-
try. The union held that an employment insurance fund
scheme would provide a similar financial incentive to the
employer to reduce unemployment.

In its brief, the union stated that the unemployment fund
should be based on contributions by manufacturers of a
specified sum per worker per week, with provisions which
would penalize those employers who had an excess amount
of unemployment by making them pay a higher premium.
In reply to the argument that a certain degree of unem-
ployment cannot be eliminated by action of the industry
alone, the union pointed out that in a competitive industry
such as the men's clothing industry, the cost resulting from
such unemployment would be shifted to the consumer like
any other cost of production, and properly so. On the other
hand, the employer who had reduced the amount of unem-
ployment in his shop by reason of better planning and man-
agement would pay less to such a fund and would thus
acquire a legitimate competitive advantage over his fellow
employers.

When the hearings were held in Chicago early in July,
it was apparent that the clothing industry had been hard
hit by the change in the general business situation. Can-
cellations of orders for the fall manufacturing season in
large and increasing volume came from the retailers. There
were also many other indications that the country as a whole
was drifting into a widespread industrial depression. The
employers argued that under such circumstances it was un-

160 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

timely to consider any measures for the relief of the workers.
The industry, they contended, found itself in a very critical
position, the manufacturers faced heavy losses as their goods
were thrown back on their hands, and the outlook for the
future was at best unpromising.

The chairman of the Board of Arbitration in the Chicago
market delayed issuing his decision until the hearing and
arbitration proceedings in the other clothing centers had
been concluded by the middle of August, 1920. In the
meantime the situation in the clothing industry and in other
industries had become worse. In his decision on August
17, 1920, he denied the request for a wage increase asked for
by the union because of the depressed condition of the cloth-
ing industry. He recognized, however, the importance of
an unemployment fund to the industry and to the workers
and accordingly made provisions for the appointment of a
commission, instructed to investigate and report the facts.
The decision of the arbitrator, Professor Tufts, is in part
as follows:

" The first question raised was whether the present situation
justifies action by the board under the emergency section. The
union showed that changes were under consideration in other
markets, while the manufacturers claimed that no emergency
existed of the sort for which the emergency section provides.

" The board rules that the purpose of the clause was to pro-
vide a safety valve, and that in construing the clause the prin-
ciple of a broad rather than a narrow or technical interpreta-
tion should be used. In any case of a doubt it is better to
investigate.

" On the question of whether readjustment should be made,
the union claimed that the cost of living had increased since the
award of December 22, 1919, and it is still increasing and seems
likely to increase further, and that increases are being given in
various other industries.

" The manufacturers urged that, for the best interests of the
industry, prices should be kept as low as possible, and submitted
information as to present conditions in the industry. The
board holds that conditions in the industry are not such as to
justify a change in wages at the present time.

" With regard to the creation of a non-employment fund, the
board believes that the first step in any case is to investigate.

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 161

It will therefore appoint a commission on which both parties
are represented, with a chairman representing the impartial
machinery, to investigate the subject and to report as promptly
as is consistent with the necessary study."

The industrial depression which first became apparent in
the clothing industry at the close of the spring manufactur-
ing season of 1920 became more general and severe in its
effects in the latter part of that year. Activity in one in-
dustry after another was reduced ; prices fell, and unemploy-
ment increased. For a time the nominal wholesale prices
for men's clothing remained for the most part undisturbed.
In November, 1920, however, the so-called " price guarantee
agreement " expired and there was a sharp drop in prices.
Despite the great price change, there was virtually no de-
mand for clothing by retailers. Many of the large manu-
facturers in the Chicago market refrained from beginning
manufacturing operations for the spring season until the
latter part of December or early January. Production in
other markets was similarly curtailed. At the same time
the New York and Boston markets were in a state of lock-
out which had caused almost a complete cessation of manu-
facturing operations.

THE ARBITRATION OF MARCH, 1921

In the latter part of February the employers in the Chi-
cago market formulated and presented demands to the union
for changes in wages and working conditions to apply to
all manufacturers under agreement in the market and to
their several contractors. The requests of the Chicago
manufacturers were as follows:

1. A flat reduction of 25 per cent, in all wage scales, both
week and piece.

2. A reduction of those piece work rates which yielded earn-
ings substantially in excess of the market norm, unless the
higher earnings were due to unusual efficiency. The reduction
in rates asked for was in addition to the flat reduction of 25
per cent.

3. Adoption of a system of " automatically enforceable
standards of production " for cutters and trimmers. This sys-

162 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

tern, said the chairman of the Board of Arbitration, amounted
to " a piece work system under which the worker would be paid
not for the quantity of work turned out during the payroll
week, but according to the quantity turned out during a speci-
fied preceding period."

A general conference and preliminary hearing was held
on March 5, 1921, to consider the request made by the manu-
facturers. At this conference, the employers submitted cer-
tain data showing average full time weekly earnings and
computed average annual earnings of the more important
sections in both the ready-made and tailor-to-the-trade
branches of the industry; price conditions in the clothing
industry and in the raw material markets; changes in the
cost of living since June, 1920, and wage reductions in other
industries, particularly the textile industries.

At the close of this preliminary conference, the union
asked for the opportunity to make independent investiga-
tion and to prepare its case in light of the data presented
by the employers. The union stated that it obviously did
not have access to certain information available to the manu-
facturers. It therefore asked specifically that representa-
tive houses in the Chicago market supply figures showing
the manufacturing costs and overhead expense in 1920 and
1921. It also requested that the manufacturers give data
showing by months the number of orders received from Octo-
ber 1st to March 15th for the spring manufacturing sea-
sons, 1918-1920 and 1920-21. The information on orders
was designed to throw light on comparative business con-
ditions during these three seasons, more especially to indi-
cate the trend in the industry and the extent to which, if
any, the business in the men's clothing industry in Chicago
had improved from the extremely depressed state of late
1920.

Formal public hearings on the request of the manufac-
turers were held on March 28 and 29, 1921, in the assembly
hall of the Northwestern School of Commerce. The hear-
ings were very largely attended and considerable space was
given to the proceedings by the Chicago newspapers as well

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 163

as by trade journals. Several hundred active members of
the Chicago Joint Board of the Amalgamated attended the
two all-day hearings. Many manufacturers, labor man-
agers and other representative employers from the Chicago,
Rochester and Baltimore clothing markets were present.
Added interest was given to the proceedings by the fact
that this was the first case brought by the manufacturers
for a wage reduction before the impartial arbitration ma-
chinery in any of the large clothing markets of the country.

Considerable general interest was also manifested in this
arbitration. Organized workers and employers particularly
were concerned with the outcome. Though the wage re-
duction movement had been set in motion several months
before, the wage changes that had become effective in un-
organized industries had been made by employers without
any check by an impartial tribunal, while in the case of
organized workers wage reductions had in some cases been
accepted after negotiations, or had been followed by strikes
or lockouts. The arbitration proceedings in the Chicago
clothing industry, affecting directly as it did 40,000 workers,
therefore attracted much attention. It indicated an orderly
method for settling problems of wage adjustment in periods
of industrial stress. Because of the importance of the case
and the circumstances under which the proceedings were
conducted, the decision was destined to have a far-reaching
effect upon arbitration proceedings or wage negotiations
in other organized industries, as well as in the clothing in-
dustry.

The employers presented their case by the submission of
a formal brief, many statistical exhibits and by oral argu-
ment. The position taken by the employers was, in brief,
as follows:

1 . For almost a year the clothing industry has suffered from
acute depression. In the liquidation process that has neces-
sarily resulted, all factors in the industry, except labor, have
shared. Prices of raw materials and manufactured goods have-
been much reduced. But labor has failed to take a reduction
in wages.

164 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

2. The volume of sales of men's clothing has declined be-
cause the prices of clothing are at a higher level than the prices
of other commodities. The only remedy for this condition is
the immediate reduction of all costs so that prices may be
lowered to the point where they will stimulate sales. All items
of cost other than direct labor costs, have already been reduced.
Labor costs alone remain at the level of 1920.

8. This reduction in costs can be accomplished only by a
substantial cut in wages. But such a cut does not mean re-
duced earnings, for it will be followed by expanding business,
fuller employment, and, consequently, greater annual earnings.

4. The cost of living in Chicago it is estimated has decreased
from June, 1920, to February, 1921, by fully 16 per cent. It
is likely to fall still further in the immediate future. " Even
though we should be disappointed," said the brief of the em-
ployers, ** in our hope of increasing earnings by the reduction
asked for, we should still be within the limits of justice if we
based our requests on the cost of living alone."

5. Wages in the clothing industry in Chicago have been
increased two hundred and fifty- four per cent, since 1915.
They have increased more than has the cost of living ; they have
increased more than have average wages in other organized
trades. Moreover, an unusually large proportion of the work-
ers in the Chicago clothing industry have no dependents or but
one dependent. The wages of the workers in the clothing in-
dustry can therefore easily stand a reduction.

6. Wages in other industries have been reduced. In some
cases the workers who have already suffered a reduction were
organized.

The employers' case, therefore, rested first, on the propo-
sition that during industrial depressions labor should share
the burdens of liquidation; second, that there was a "nor-
mal " relationship between prices in one industry and those
in another, and that this balance must be restored if normal
business conditions were to be secured; third, that an in-
dustry by reducing prices could divert for at least an in-
definite period purchasing power now used in buying other
commodities to the purchase of the goods manufactured by
it; fourth, that the increases in wages in the past had been
made with reference to changes in the cost of living, and
the reductions asked for were therefore justified by the re-
duction in the cost of living from the " peak " prices of

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 165

1920; and fifth, that there is some general level of wages in
this country which must be closely approached by all in-
dustries. The clothing workers' wages in Chicago are above
this level. Their earnings must be reduced as they have
already been in certain other industries.

In attempting to measure changes in the cost of living
and earnings since 1915, the manufacturers by inference
also contended that that year represented the " norm " or
standard from which relative changes were to be measured,
though the general market agreement had been signed in
May, 1919, and wage rates, hours and working conditions
had been fixed by direct negotiation between the union and
employers at that time and had been modified since only by
action of the impartial arbitration machinery.

The employers submitted in support of their general argu-
ment a large number of statistical exhibits. Among the
more important of these exhibits were:

1. Tables showing average weekly earnings (four best con-
secutive weeks in 1920 under existing piece work and week work
rates) in the coat, trouser and vest shops, by operations, and
for both the ready-made and special order houses.

2. Charts showing variations in total payroll by weeks for
coats, trousers and vest shops, for the purpose of indicating
average amount of employment throughout the year and thus
average annual earnings.

3. Reports of unit volume of business booked for the spring
manufacturing seasons 1919, 1920 and 1921, for individual
representative houses.

4. Reports of manufacturing and other costs for both ready-
made and special order houses.

5. Average prices in 1921 and 1920; and concentration of
spring business for 1921 as compared with 1920 on various
priced models.

6. Volume of cancellation of spring orders 1919, 1920 and
1921.

7. Unit volume of returned goods in the fall of 1921 as
compared with 1918 and 1919.

8. Changes in the cost of living compared to increase in
earnings for all workers in a; single large wholesale clothing
firm January, 1915, to January, 1920 (suggested as represen-
tative of increase in average earnings for the market in this
period).

166 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

In their argument the employers had put particular em-
phasis upon the necessity of labor's sharing the burdens of
liquidation in a period of industrial depression and the need
for making further reduction in cost so that prices to the
consumer would be lowered and buying stimulated. Only
by the acceptance of this theory of wage liquidation could
the employers justify the drastic wage reductions which they
requested the Board of Arbitration to make. On its part
the union contended that the granting of the requests of the
manufacturers would only result in a serious impairment
of the workers' standard of living and therefore was wholly
unwarranted. The union spokesmen, therefore, in their oral
arguments and in the written briefs submitted to the Board
addressed themselves not alone to the questions of changes
in living costs, wage reductions in other industries, relative
wages and the trend of business conditions in the men's
clothing industry, but also to the economic theory of wage
liquidation advanced by the employers. The brief prepared
by the research department of the union dealt in a series of
separate memoranda with the following aspects of the
case:

Wages in the men's clothing industry in Chicago.

Wages and cost of living.

Cost of living in Chicago.

The extent of wage reductions.

Wage reduction in the textile and oil industries.

Relation between cost and wages in the Chicago clothing
industry.

Business conditions.

The economic theory of wage liquidation.

Labor's share in liquidation.

The union was represented by President Sidney Hillman,
Manager Samuel Levin, General Executive Board mem-
bers A. D. Marimpietri and Samuel Rissman, and Dr. Leo
Wolman in the oral arguments at the public hearings. By
the very nature of the case the arguments of the union
spokesmen were directed in large measure toward a refuta-
tion of the position advanced by the employers. However,
at the very outset the union directed attention to the present

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 167

status oi' the workers in the Chicago clothing market as
organized workers.

The union laid stress on the importance of the fact that
the clothing workers of Chicago were now organized into a
strong trade union. This, the union said, was fundamental
to an understanding of the case and a proper decision by
the Board of Arbitration. The workers hau organized for
the express purpose of protecting the standards which they
had since secured through organization and for steadily rais-
ing their standards of well-being. Throughout the argu-
ment of the employers this outstanding fact of the situation
had been overlooked. The union as a labor organization
could not accept a theory of wage liquidation during indus-
trial depressions which would wipe out gains made during
more prosperous times and tend to undermine standards
attained by negotiation and agreement.

Neither would the union consider that reductions in wage
rates suffered by unorganized workers be taken as a guide
in the determination of the wages of organized workers.
Such wage reductions, wherever accepted by the workers^
indicated only the superior strength of the employers with-
out regard to the fairness or the necessity for the lower wage
standards. In fact, the union showed that in two important
industries, in which the employers said in their brief the
most drastic wage reductions had made, profits and divi-
dends paid had been extraordinarily large for the year 1920.
It was obvious that in these cases there was no justification
for the wage reductions made by the employers.

The union considered first the principal contention of the
employers — namely, that the Chicago clothing industry was
in a condition of acute depression and that recovery could
only come after a drastic wage reduction and lowered labor
costs had made possible lower prices. In reply the union
contended :

First, that prices could be reduced without a reduction in
wages. In the past, said the union, there has been no close
relationship between changes in wages and changes in prices.
During the boom period of 1919 and early 1920 it is a well-

168 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

known fact that prices of men's clothing (and of other com-
modities) were determined not by any relation between
wages and prices but solely by what the traffic would bear.
Second, that the cost data presented by the employers
show that labor cost does not constitute the all-controlling
element in the cost of making clothes. The information on
costs furthermore shows that there are diversities in labor
costs and in the other elements of cost reported by different
manufacturers. In certain houses overhead expense is the
largest item. In other instances cost of raw material, wool-
ens and trimmings, represents a greater proportion of total
cost than does any other element. The cost figures show that
the wage reductions demanded by the manufacturers even
if made would have little effect on the total production cost
of making clothes and a still smaller and more remote effect
upon the final price of clothing paid by the consumer.

Third, that before reducing labor costs as requested by
the employers the Board should inquire into the fairness of
the present level of labor costs.

" The employers," said President Hillman, " have asked for a
reduction in labor costs without defining what a proper labor
cost is. They have simply said they are excessive. The union
submits that the Board must take into account, in determining
a fair standard of labor costs, whether labor costs have in-
creased disproportionately to total cost; what steps had been
taken by the union to reduce costs through increased efficiency,
and finally, the primary obligation of the industry to assure to
its workers a decent standard of living. The figures will show
that though earnings have increased, labor costs have not in-
creased disproportionately to total costs; that the union has
made contributions to the efficiency of the market and that
though workers' standards had risen they were not excessive
and that they did not place an unfair burden on the consumers
of men's clothing."

The union cited in this connection the cost figures and
data showing change from week work to piece work in the
market, which had been submitted by the manufacturers.
The cost figures showed that for ten of fourteen houses labor
cost was less than thirty per cent, of total cost. Labor cost

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 169

to-day, March, 1921, does not constitute a larger proportion
of the total costs, even after there have been reductions in
other items of cost as the employers have stated, than did
labor cost in 1915. Labor cost to-day, therefore, is clearly
not excessive.

For this result the union showed it was in a large measure
responsible. " In the period since the agreement was signed
in May, 1919, labor cost," said the union's brief, " has been
reduced mainly through the energetic co-operation of the
union. On the basis of calculations made by the union, it
has been found that the reduction in labor costs brought
about by the co-operation of the union has been, in the period
from May, 1919, to date (March, 1921), fully as great as
ten per cent, with respect to the savings due to changes from
week work to piece work alone.

It is pertinent to quote at this point the statement of
A. D. Marimpietri made before the Board of Arbitration:

" The union has always helped and in many cases volunteered
suggestions for the elimination of unnecessary costs in the pro-
cess of manufacturing. To-day it can be safely said that the
industry is running, so far as the manufacturing part is con-
cerned, more efficiently than ever before. It can be asserted
without fear of contradiction that this market exceeds all
others in the matter of manufacturing efficiency.

" To secure the good-will of the workers, it has taken con-
siderable patience and effort on our part, and with the help
of the impartial machinery we have been quite successful. I
want to emphasize the weight that we give to the good-will of
the workers because I know that without it my best intentions
and that of my colleagues would be of very little value.

" A still further reduction would to my honest conviction
seriously affect the good-will of the workers toward the em-
ployers, the agreement, and the impartial machinery to which
they have been and are being educated to look for protection
and justice.

" A still further reduction would in the long run prove
ominous to the industry, because it would impair the efficiency
of the workers.

" Let me explain the meaning of the last statement : since the
signing of the general agreement in this market a stupendous
amount of energy was released from our piece workers, energy

170 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

that was kept in reserve for fear of rate reductions, a fear
amply justified by the past custom in our industry.

" Piece work rates were instituted by foremen or other execu-
tives and I do not intend to criticize the way the rates were
arrived at, but I want to say that although these rates were
generally low, it happened sometimes that a particular worker
or a particular section would earn a little more money, with
the consequence that the rate was immediately reduced. Cases
of this kind were quite frequent and so the workers learned of
it and most naturally applied their own remedy for correction,
which was the refusal to give extra energy for no extra com-
pensation. I shall tell my own experience in the matter, and
I do not fear being accused of any wrong-doing, because I
firmly believe I was entirely justified and I would do it in the
future again under the same circumstances.

" I was given certain piece work rates by the foreman of the
shop where I worked. As a whole the rates were quite satis-
factory; by working hard I was able to earn a fair wage for
that time, but I knew how far I could go, because I had seen
and heard of rates being reduced for the only reason that the
pay envelope looked too big to the employer or to the foreman.
The fact that one worker was doing the work previously done
by three, as in my case, was of no consideration whatever. Be-
ing the only one on that particular job I was in a somewhat
peculiar position. If I worked extra hard I could manage to
take care of it; if I refused to speed another worker would be
added and then there would never be work for both of us. I
decided to work extra hard and at the same time turn in tickets
for only weekly amounts which I knew, or I thought I knew,
was the maximum allowed, and keep the rest for a slack period
if that period was near or destroy them if need be rather than
submit to a reduction of rates. This lasted for quite a while,
until more of that kind came in the shop and a new worker,
just arrived from Europe, was put beside me. He worked as
hard as he could, turned in all his tickets at the end of the week
and the next thing I knew, a reduction of 33 per cent, in the
rate had taken place.

" Under the agreement, such a system has disappeared, hence
the releasing of the energy of which I am speaking.

" That our workers are more efficient since the agreement
cannot be justly denied, and if they are earning at present when
at work a living wage, it is due chiefly to their increased effi-
ciency, as a result partly of close co-operation between the
employer and the union and partly of the introduction of Kbor
saving machines."

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 171

Moreover, said the union, earnings at present wage rates
do not yield to the worker and his dependents a standard
of living which is excessive and a burden to the industry or
to the consumer of clothing. To determine the weekly
earnings of a clothing worker the annual earnings should
be averaged over the fifty-two weeks of the year. The
clothing worker is obliged to spread his earnings over the
fifty-two weeks of the year, although he is actually employed
for a considerably fewer number of weeks. If the necessary
allowance be made for unemployment and earnings pire
spread over the whole year, the actual weekly income of a
workingman is seen, in the following table, not to be ex-
cessive :

AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES OF CLOTHING WORKERS,

CHICAGO, 1920.

(1 Year =52 Weeks.)

Ready Made. Special Order.

Men. Women. Men. Women.

WEEK WORKERS.

Coats $31.00 $20.00 $28.00 $19.00

Pants 24.00 16.00 29.00 19.50

Vests . 29.00 19.00 33.00 22.70

Coats

PIECE WORK
$39 . 60

ERS.

$28.30
25.00
23.40

$36.90
35.30
36.80

$25 . 30
27.80
26.90

Pants

38 . 20

Vests

38.20

" On no level of prices," said the union's brief, " can
those wages be said to be more than adequate." No reduc-
tion of labor costs at the expense of wages can be justified
if the industry's obligation to support its workers is recog-
nized as a primary one.

Fourth, that wage reductions cannot be justified on the
ground that all interests other than wage-earners had taken
losses in the process of liquidation and that labor should take

172 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

its share by accepting a wage cut. The union did not deny
that many manufacturers had suffered losses during the
period of liquidation which followed the decline of business
in 1920. The union maintained, however, that " while
there is no fair comparison between the nature and
extent of liquidation experienced by workingmen and by
business men, the employers' figures show that in the last
six months of 1920 workers in the clothing industry in
Chicago suffered serious and continuous unemployment.
This unemployment carried with it enormous reductions
in earnings. Furthermore, earnings of workers had been
also reduced by changes in the quality of work de-
manded of them." Yet the manufacturers were now de-
manding virtually that workers share their losses of liqui-
dation, though when business was booming, prices high and
profit margins large, the employers had not asked the
workers to share in the profits. " In every respect the con-
dition in the last six months of 1920 and early 1921 was one
of real liquidation so far as the workers in the clothing in-
dustry were concerned. Man for man, the economic sacri-
fice experienced was fully as great as that experienced by
any manufacturer or any other agent of industry in the
clothing industry. The whole process of liquidation has
meant for the worker a definite set-back in the standard of
living."

Fifth, that an analysis of the factors operating in a depres-
sion would show that even if the wage reductions asked for
by the manufacturers were made they would not bring the
stimulation of sales and increased volume of employment
that they had hoped for when they had presented their
case. The union pointed out that general price reductions
in a period of industrial depression do not bring an increase
in the volume of business. On the contrary, a stable price
level is essential to the stimulation of sales. Buyers hold
off when they believe prices will go still lower and begin to
buy once they are assured that prices are fair and stable,
provided the purchasing power of the consumer has not been
impaired because of wage cuts or unemployment, and finally,

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 173

that the acute depressed condition in which the clothing in-
dustry found itself at the beginning of the spring manu-
facturing season of 1920-21 and upon which condition the
manufacturers had based their case, had, in large measure,
passed.

As the spring manufacturing season of 1920-21 advanced,
there was a marked increase in the number of orders received
by Chicago clothing manufacturers. This fact was re-
vealed, the union pointed out, in the figures for the number of
orders received which were submitted by the manufacturers
to the Board of Arbitration at the request of the union.
This increase in business had already reflected itself in the
volume of employment enjoyed by the clothing workers in
Chicago and in other clothing centers. " Already only one
month after the employers' brief was submitted," said the
statement of the union, " clothing markets report a short-
age of workers and advertisements in newspapers for addi-
tional workers are to be found."

The brief of the union also directed attention to the re-
ports in trade papers of the withdrawal of offerings of
woolen lines for the fall, 1921 ; the improvement in the Fed-
eral Reserve Banks' reserve ratio and the consequent eas-
ing of the credit situation; the resumption of activity in the
building industry; the favorable reports made by depart-
ment stores to the Federal Reserve Board on the volume of
trade in January and February; and the increase of activity
in certain industries, particularly those dealing with such
goods as boots and shoes, textiles and wearing apparel, as
constructive factors in the general business situation. The
union held that the men's clothing industry had in fact made
a distinct recovery from the depressed condition of 1920 and
that an improvement in the general situation would still
further aid in expanding the volume of business in the in-
dustry. Recovery had then in part set in, although there
had been no change in the wage level.

The employers had laid much stress on the decrease in
the cost of living which occurred between June, 1920, and
December, 1920, in their argument for a reduction. The

174 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

union challenged the conclusions of the employers on a num-
ber of grounds. In the first place the union pointed out
that wage adjustments since 1917 had not been on the basis
of changes in the cost of living. They were due to the ef-
forts of the union to raise the workers' standard of living
and the wage reduction asked for by manufacturers if
granted would reduce the standards reached by agreement.
In fact, in the case of many of the increases granted the
lower paid sections were given a relatively higher increase
than the better paid sections so as to raise the standard of
the more poorly paid workers.

Mr. Samuel Levin, Manager of the Chicago Joint Board,
discussed at the public hearing the effect of a horizontal
wage cut on the Chicago market. " In practically all of
the adjustments," said Mr. Levin, " in wage rates made in
the market, workers in the more highly paid sections have
been given smaller increases relatively than have been given
workers employed on the more poorly paid operations. It
has been the union policy to use the official increases granted
to it to raise the standards of the more poorly paid workers.
A wage reduction would first reduce the standards of the
low paid workers whose level of well-being the union has
been able to raise only after considerable effort. It would
also result in reducing the standards of the more highly paid
workers whose wages were never advanced as rapidly as the
cost of living. The reduction of these workers cannot be
justified upon any slight reduction in the cost of living
index."

In the second place, the union held that the employers had
attempted to measure changes in living cost from June,
1920. June, 1920, was not a proper base. The workers had
been given no increase in 1920 to compensate them for the
rise from December, 1919, to June, 1920. It was the union's
contention that change in living cost should be measured,
if at all, from December, 1919, to March, 1921.

In the third place, the union challenged the accuracy of
the figures of the employers for measuring changes in living
costs. On the basis of a new series of index numbers

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 175

constructed by the union which differed from those of the
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics by giving a new
and proper weight to rents, the union showed that there had
been only a slight change downward in the cost of living from
December, 1919, when the last change in wage rates had been
made in the Chicago market. On the basis of this index the
estimated decrease in the cost of living from December,
1919, to May, 1921, was from three to five per cent. Fur-
thermore, it was the union's contention that there was a
probability of an increase in prices, particularly of food,
rather than a further decrease.

In the fourth place, the union, while admitting that when
the changes are very great, the index number of the cost of
living is a legitimate index ; it at the same time directed atten-
tion to the difficulties inherent in changing wages whenever
there is only a slight change in the cost of living index. The
union said:

" Finally the union urges the necessity for great caution in
making any wage adjustments whatsoever on the basis of only
slight changes in an index number of the cost of living. A
wage reduction is after all a very real and personal thing. It
has to be explained to large masses of people, each of whom
has his own personal experience with regard to both income
and expenditures. It is a debatable question whether any
adjustment in wages downward is justified in a highly organ-
ized industry when there may exist considerable difference of
opinion with regard to the validity of the various measures of
changes in the cost of living."

The employers had contended that the earnings of the
workers in the Chicago clothing industry had increased,
according to the figures of the manufacturers, 254 per cent,
since 1915. This increase, they said, in the earnings of the
clothingi workers was greater than the increase in living costs
and more than earnings of workers had increased in other
industries. To cut wages in the clothing industry would
not reduce standards below a proper level.

The representatives of the Amalgamated pointed out,
however, that the demand of the manufacturers was for a
reduction of wage rates, and that even if the figures of the

176 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

manufacturers were correct and typical of the market as a
whole they were not pertinent to the question before the
Board of Arbitration. Changes in earnings, the union said,
are due only in part to wage increases. Earnings of
workers in the Chicago market have been affected by in-
creases in output and efficiency. To reduce wages because
earnings were high would penalize the worker for his greater
contribution and would amount to adopting " the bad prin-
ciple that all gains resulting from improvement in efficiency
should go to the employer."

Even if earnings or wage rates had increased more than
had the cost of living or than had wages in other organized
industries since 1915, they were not a proper basis for the
granting of a wage cut. The employers had selected 1915
as a starting point from which to measure relative changed
in living costs and earnings of clothing workers in Chicago.
' Why," said the union, " select 1915 as a base? There is
no agreement by the union that earnings in 1915 yielded
the workers a proper standard) of living, even at 1915 prices.
As a matter of fact, earnings of clothing workers in 1915
were notoriously low and only by raising wages, through
organization, faster than the increase in the cost of living,
could the clothing worker attain a proper standard or reach
the level already reached by other organized workers." The
union, therefore, objected to the comparison of relative
changes in wage rates or earnings with the cost of living,
unless a proper base was selected from which to measure
such changes.

But the union did not content itself with a discussion of
the principles involved in the use of a comparison between
wages and cost of living. It showed that official wage in-
creases in the Chicago market had in fact lagged behind the
increase in the cost of living. Earnings, no doubt, had risen
at a higher rate than shown by a compilation of official wage
adjustments. But these higher earnings, as had been shown,
resulted in part from other causes than general market wage
adjustments.

After the public hearings the union questioned the power

THb UHRARY
Of THfc
af rt LIHOIS

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 177

of the Board of Arbitration, acting under the specific pro-
visions of the Chicago agreement, to change wages unless
there had been " a general change in wages in the clothing in-
dustry." No such general wage change, it submitted, had
taken place. This challenge of the jurisdiction of the Board
the union did not present until after the public hearings had
been held. It did not submit its objections on this matter
sooner because it wished to afford an opportunity to the
Board of Arbitration to fully investigate the claim of the
manufacturers that an emergency within the specific mean-
ing of the agreement actually existed.

The question raised by the union as to the power of the
Board to make an award had, of course, to be disposed of
first. After reviewing the use of the emergency clause in
previous hearings, the chairman held that Professor Tufts
when chairman, in making his decision on the arbitration
proceedings of July and August, 1919, had ruled " that the
purpose of the clause was to provide flexibility and a safety
valve; and in construing the clause, the principle of broad,
rather than of narrow or technical interpretation should be
used." At the time Professor Millis was making his de-
cision the lock-out was still in effect in the New York mar-
ket. He called attention to the fact that if a strict inter-
pretation was given to the wording of the agreement that it
would be " necessary for the workers and manufacturers in
Chicago, now the largest market, to wait until something
had been done in one or more of the other markets, before
the Arbitration Board could decide a question of wages at
issue. The chairman, quite independently of the case in
hand, feels that such procedure would be unfortunate."

Professor Millisi therefore ruled that the Board had power
under the terms of the agreement to render a decision at that
time on the question of wages in the Chicago market.

As a basis for the decision on the wage cuts requested by
the manufacturers, Professor H. A. Millis, chairman of the

178 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

Board of Arbitration, analyzed the data which had been sub-
mitted bv both sides. The Chairman first discussed the re-

9f

lation between earnings and wages in the Chicago market
to determine whether the standards of the clothing worker
were in fact excessive. " Data drawn from typical houses
by the representatives of the manufacturers and submitted
to the Board show for very good or the best successive four
weeks (in each house) average earnings for a 44-hour week
as follows:

Men. Women.

Piece Week Piece Week

Work. Work. Work. Work.

Coat Shops $51.75 $40.59 $36.28 $27.52

Pants Shops 52.20 37.65 37.44 26.57

Vest Shops 51.19 41.57 32.63 29.57

Average $51.79 $40.30 $36.13 $27.48

Average for all workers (based upon 11,500). .$48.44 $34.31

" These averages of course, show earning power with full and
uninterrupted employment for 44 hours per week and with ap-
proximately 71 per cent, of the men and 79 per cent, of the
women on piece work and applying themselves intently and
working rapidly as piece workers do. They are averages only
and behind them, as would be expected, are great diversities of
earnings by occupations — the extremes for men in the ready-
made coat shops, for example, being $55.04 for sleeve sewers
and $24.50 for finishers on week work, and $59.09 for edge
pressers and $30.20 for a finisher on piece work; for women,
$41.25 for button hole makers and $18.31 for basting pullers on
week work, and $52.94 for sleeve sewers and $23.62 for basting
pullers on piece work. Moreover, the averages presented are
drawn from the tailor shops only; cutting rooms, spongers,
machinists and other, these aggregating an eighth or a seventh
of the workers employed, are omitted from consideration. With
minor expectations, these mentioned are week workers, but
taken as a group they have wages averaging about the same as
those of their fellow week workers in the tailor shops."

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 179

Comparing these data and making allowance for the
higher earnings for piece workers, the chairman concluded
that the standards of the clothing worker set by agreement
in 1919 " cannot be said to be exorbitant and could not be
regarded as having placed a tax or improper burden upon
those served by the clothing industry."

The chairman then discussed the effect of a wage reduction
on the business outlook of the clothing industry. He found,
in the first place, that " from data supplied by a large num-
ber of manufacturers in a form requested by the Board, it
appears that with the changes in prices induced by keen
competition and in costs of manufacture and sale, a large
part, if not most of the business is being done at a loss."
On the other hand, he called attention to the fact, emphasized
by the union, that direct labor cost in a large majority of
houses reporting is less than thirty per cent, of the total cost
of manufacture.

The employers had contended in their argument that a
drastic wage cut would so stimulate business and afford a
larger measure of employment that despite lower wage rates,
earnings of the workers would be increased. With this con-
tention of the employers the chairman held that he could not
agree. " Of course, a reduction in wage rates would be fol-
lowed by some increase in buying, if we may assume that
any saving in labor cost will be passed on to the consumer.
There is, however, no substantial reason to believe that a
reduction of twenty-five per cent., as requested, would so
favorably affect business that earnings would be maintained
or increased because of the increased amount of work."

Revival in the clothing industry, in the opinion of the
chairman, was dependent upon revival in industry generally.
' The fact is," said the chairman in his decision, " that the
volume of business and the amount of work in the coming
months will depend more upon what happens outside the
clothing industry than upon what happens within it. If
general business conditions improve materially, as many
think they will and as there is much reason to think will be
the case, there will be a good demand for clothing, for peo-

180 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

pie will in that event have money to spend and will be of
an optimistic frame of mind. If, on the other hand, there
is widespread unemployment and reduced earnings in other
industries, a great reduction in the cost of producing cloth-
ing would not make the clothing industry normal or any-
where near normal. In other words, there is much in the
situation entirely beyond the control of the clothing industry.
In fact, the clothing industry is a very dependent one ; very
dependent upon the ups and downs in the general business
situation."

Coming then to the effect of a price change resulting from
a wage reduction the chairman said: " Certainty as to costs
and stability in the market would be helpful regardless of
any change in costs and prices. But, it must be said that if
costs were reduced but instability still continued because of
unusually keen competition for business and price cutting,
there would still be more or less waiting. Moreover, what-
ever may be the merits of the case, there is a rather prevalent
feeling that prices are too high and that something should
be done and will be done to bring them down to that in-
definite and undefined thing, a ' fair level'." Nevertheless,
he held that " the psychological effect of a readjustment in
cost, provided any saving is not withheld from consumers,
would have a favorable effect on the clothing business."

He did not, however, " share the manufacturers' view that
a drastic reduction in wages would so stimulate business as
to; maintain or increase earnings."

" Such a drastic reduction would mean that the standards
of wages set up by agreement would be impaired," read the
decision of the Chairman. " The chairman is of the opinion
that in the present situation these standards should not be im-
paired because (a) they were set up by agreement by the parties
in interest; (b) they cannot be said to have been exorbitant
when tested by what organized workers of a comparable type
received or by the cost of any socially acceptable type of living
and therefore cannot be said to have placed a tax or improper
burden upon those served by the clothing industry; (c) the
workers cannot well be asked to accept losses which would in
all probability accompany a drastic cut unless they are prom-
ised a share in profits when profits are very good."

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 181

The chairman therefore held that " any adjustment will
therefore be within the limits of the reduction in the cost of
living and will not undermine the general standards set up
by agreement in 1919."

The cost of living had declined, making allowance for
changes; in rent about 8 or 9 per cent, from December, 1919.
Many had received then a large increase in wages. On this
basis clothing workers who had " had the larger increases
in the clothing industry of Chicago are better off by 15 per
cent, or more than they were with equal employment in
June or July, 1919, and 8 or 9 per cent, better off than im-
mediately after the wage award of December, 1919. Only a
small number of the workers are less than 10 per cent, better
off in respect to purchasing power of their wage rates than
they were in June or July, 1919, and these are some 8 or 9
per cent, better off than they were left by the award of
December, 1919."

The Board therefore held that in view of the general sit-
uation that a reduction within the limits of the change in the
cost of living was justified. Moreover, the chairman ex-
pressed the opinion that some reduction in wages at this time
will be of assistance to the market situation and to the agree-
ment.

For the above reasons, the Board of Arbitration therefore
ordered the following reductions in the wages of workers in
tailor shops:

" (a) that with the exception of those who came in the * five
per cent, class ' under the award of December, 1919, and except
for cutters, trimmers (other than shop trimmers), and appren-
tices, the wages and piece rates of the workers employed by the
manufacturers within its jurisdiction, and also of those of the
workers employed by the several contractors doing work for
these manufacturers, shall be reduced ten per cent. (10%),
this reduction to become effective at the beginning of the pay-
roll week in each house on or following April 28, 1921. The
wages of no week worker may, however, be reduced below the
sum of $15.00 per week, which is the present minimum wage
for learners in tailor shops and which is hereby continued in
effect."

" (b) That the wages of the workers or sections falling
within the ' five per cent, class ' under the award of December,
1919, shall be reduced five per cent. (5%), effective as of date-
above indicated.

" (c) That the norms for tailors, examiners, bushelmen and
bushel girls shall be reduced by ten per cent., and thus reduced,
are continued in effect and shall be observed as hitherto."

The Board ordered a reduction of 5 per cent, in the wages
of trimmers and of other workers in the trimming-room,
provided, however, that in no event shall any wage be re-
duced below the sum of $15 per week.

The award of the Board of Arbitration did not make a
reduction in the wages of cutters or of apprentice cutters.
In this case the Board decided that :

" The Chairman is of the opinion that $45.00 per week is
none too much at this time for a good, average cutter. The
majority of cutters are mature men with families to support
from their earnings. As tested by what other union men of
comparable ability, training and responsibility receive in Chi
cago, the wage of $45.00 is not a high one. Moreover, the
cutters have not advanced as rapidly in wages as have their
fellows in the tailor shops. The Board will therefore not rule
with reference to cutters' wages in such a manner as to compel
any reduction in the average received."

It will be recalled that the employers had requested a wage
cut of 25 per cent, for these workers as well as for the other
workers in the clothing industry and had asked in addition
for the establishment of " automatically enforceable stand-
ards of production " in cutting and trimming rooms. Such
standards would represent a change from the group stand-
ards, which had been set by the cutters' commission cre-
ated by the decision of the Board of Arbitration of Decem-
ber, 1919, to individual standards of production under which
the cutter or trimmer would be paid according to his pro-
duction.

When the cutters asked for a wage increase in December,
1919, the manufacturers complained of reduced production.
To meet the problem presented the Board then appointed a
commission to set standards of production, which were sub-

sequently approved by the Board of Arbitration. The
manufacturers and the union had, at that time, agreed upon
standards " in the form of an average for the cutters re-
ceiving the minimum or about the minimum wage set by
the Board." The " group standards " then fixed had not
worked satisfactorily, said the manufacturers, and therefore
they now demanded individual standards " automatically en-
forceable " — i. e. a system of payment according to pro-
duction amounting to " a piece-work system under which
the worker would be paid, not for the quantity of work
turned out during the payroll period, but according to the
quantity turned out during an earlier period."

The chairman held that while he recognized the failure of
the so-called " group standards " he was of the opinion that
the automatic enforceable standard system requested by the
manufacturers would be undesirable from the point of view
of both management and workers. He said on this point:

" On the one hand, it would give rise to problems of quality*
of yardage, of disinclination to do certain kinds of work on
which the worker felt that he could not make as good a record
as on some other. On the other hand, it would be regarded as
unfair by workers because the allowance could never be made
exact; the work cannot always be divided evenly among the
workers; it is easily possible to change the quality of work
required or the conditions under which it is done; it is very
difficult to make allowances for time lost through no fault of
the worker ; and, in special order houses especially, there is fre-
quent waiting for work. For these reasons and the further
reason that considerations other than output should hav*
weight, the Chairman is of the opinion that cutting in this mar-
ket is not a piece work job. Nor can there in any strict sense
of the term be * automatically enforceable standards.' '

He held, however, that the problem of production was
one " which calls for solution in the interests of the manu-
facturers, workers and impartial chairman;" and that the
solution would be found in establishing a closer relation
between work done and wages. The failure of the group
standard system he ascribed primarily to the fact that the
faster worker was obliged under that system to give greater

184 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

production without proportionate reward to make up for
the deficiency of the slower worker, so that the average for
the group might be maintained.

Accordingly the decision of the chairman directed the es-
tablishment of two cutters' commissions to fix standards of
production, where none now existed and to revise existing
standards " at those points where experience has shown the
necessity for such revision." Cutters were to be classified
into five groups for the purpose of relating production to
wages as follows:

Wage
Class. Production. Per Week.

A 115 per cent, or more of standard $49.00

B 105 per cent, but less than 115 per cent, of

standard 47 . 00

C 95 per cent, but less than 105 per cent, of

standard 45 . 00

D 85 per cent, but less than 95 per cent, of stand-
ard 43 . 00

E Less than 85 per cent 41 . 00

The classification of cutters was to become effective one
month after standards had been fixed by the commission
and approved by the Board. It was provided further that
no cutter should be reduced more than $4.00 from present
wages on account of reduction in production. To make
allowance for length of service it was provided that no cutter
" employed in a house for five years or more shall be re-
duced below $43 per week."

The Board specifically ordered that there should be no
changes in the minimum scale or the wages of apprentices
in the cutting-room. Provision was made for the setting up
of such machinery as may be necessary for the administration
of the classification scheme. The Board also directed the
commission to set similar standards of production and wages
for the trimmers, as soon as the standards for cutters had
been established.

THE GREAT WAGE ARBITRATIONS 185

There still remained for decision the request of the manu-
facturers for a reduction of those piece-work rates which
yielded earnings substantially in excess of the market norms.
While agreeing in principle that the manufacturers should
be permitted to reduce so-called " peaks " whenever the
high earnings of workers under the existing rates did not
result from extra effort and skill, the chairman held that
each case would require special investigation and individual
action so that the fundamental rule in the market relating to
piece-work rates, namely " equal pay for equal effort " and
additional pay for additional effort would not be violated.
A commission consisting of a representative of the union,
Mr. Marimpietri, and the labor manager for each house was
set up to investigate and report on these cases. Only a few
cases of " peaks " came before the Board of Arbitration for
subsequent action, many of the cases being withdrawn after
investigation by the commission. The entire matter was
practically disposed of in the case of the Majestic Tailoring
Company, decided July 5, 1921. The company asked then
that piece-work rates for 22 operations be reduced. The
Board held that it would make no changes in present rates
if such rates were above the market level for similar work
because of the prices set or wages paid by the firm before
the agreement was entered into. It adhered, in other words,
to the same general principle upon which the decision on the
main question of wage reduction had been based — namely,
that the Board had no authority to reduce standards fixed
by agreement between the manufacturers and the union or
to change conditions made by employers before there was
an agreement. Moreover, the chairman held that with regard
to " peaks " it would not reduce piece-work rates voluntarily
increased by the firm " without collective bargaining " and
that it would not reduce any rate unless it is substantially
in excess of a fair price. The chairman therefore held that
18 of 22 alleged " peaks " would not be ordered changed.
In the other four piece-work rates, it ordered only slight
reductions.

186 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

Four wage arbitrations have been held in the Chicago
market. In 1917 only the workers employed by Hart,
Schaffner and Marx were directly affected. In the last
three proceedings the arbitration decisions have applied to
the entire Chicago market. Wage increases were granted in
May, 1917, and December, 1919. The decision in the arbi-
tration proceedings in 1920 made no change in wage levels.
In April, 1921, the award favored the employers, and wage
reductions for the workers in the tailor shops, in some cases
of 10 per cent, and in others of 5 per cent., were made.

The Board of Arbitration in the proceedings of 1917
found a difficult situation. On the one hand it was clear
that the cost of living had risen and was continuing to go
higher. Wages measured in terms of food and other neces-
saries of life which money wages could buy were being re-
duced. Unless the worker was given a wage increase his
standards would be impaired. On the other hand, the case of
the clothing worker had not been brought before the Board
of Arbitration until after the firm had fixed its prices for the
season and had made sales at these prices. An award for
the workers at that time would not have permitted the manu-
facturers to pass any additional burden on to the consumer,
certainly not to the extent that competitive conditions and
the consumer's willingness to pay might have permitted at
the beginning of the season. A decision favoring the em-
ployer would however impose a hardship on the workers.
The Board decided to preserve workers' standards, although
it pointed out its obligation under more normal conditions
not to put the manufacturer at a business disadvantage.

Different conditions confronted the Board of Arbitration
in December, 1919. The industry was extraordinarily pros-
perous. The union was pressing for higher standards.
Market conditions of supply and demand were favorable to
the workers. The manufacturers contended that it was the
duty of the Board to refuse to permit the workers to take ad-
vantage of these conditions because to do so would be con-
trary to " public policy." The chairman of the Board held
that under the competitive system " labor had had to bar-

gain for its wages and it cannot be expected to forego en-
tirely the advantages which market conditions now afford."
It is interesting to note here that in the brief submitted by
the manufacturers in the arbitration proceedings of March,
1921, they said on page 44 that " by and large, progress of
wage earners is made by taking advantage of normal adjust-
ment to cost of living during an upward swing and by hold-
ing some part of the increase when the tide turns."

In the wage arbitration of July and August, 1920, the
serious condition with which the clothing industry was then
confronted was the outstanding fact. The effects of the
depression were already evident in the clothing industry.
Though the cost of living had risen and earnings had fallen
because of decreased volume of employment, no relief could
be forthcoming from a business situation then so acute. The
Board made no attempt to anticipate a possible change in
the bargaining strength of the parties to the agreement. It
made no change in the existing wage level.

The last wage arbitration took place after the first stage
of the depression which had first affected the industry in
the spring of 1920 had passed. Inventories of raw materials
and stocks of clothing had, generally speaking, been liqui-
dated with some loss to the manufacturers. The earnings
of the workers on the other hand had suffered because of
wide-spread unemployment. The question presented to the
Board of Arbitration was whether it was within the province
of the Board to reduce the standards of the workers fixed
by the agreement on the ground ( 1 ) that labor should share
with the manufacturers the losses of liquidation and (2) that
a reduction of wages would permit lower prices to consumers
and thus stimulate business. To this question the chair-
man answered that he was not justified in reducing wage
standards below what the workers had gained by agree-
ment with the manufacturers. Employers had not shared
profits with the workers. There was no agreement that
workers should share losses with the manufacturers.

But, the Board maintained, it did have the power and
was justified in reducing wages to the extent that the cost of

188 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

living had decreased, but only to that extent. In other words,
while the Board could reduce money wages, it could not
cut real wages — wages measured by the amount of food,
clothing, shelter, etc., which the wages could purchase —
when standards had been fixed by agrement between the
manufacturers and the union.

Under the " emergency clause " of the agreement which
provides for wage changes by the Board of Arbitration,
the Board, it will be recalled, has wide powers. It is given
authority to make such changes in wages as in its judgment
seems proper. The Board of Arbitration has, however,
severely limited its own authority. It has not arbitrarily
attempted to fix a " fair wage." In the December, 1919,
arbitration the chairman, when faced directly with the issue,
decided that the Board should not interpose its authority to
prevent the union from bettering the standards of the
workers when the industry could afford it on the ground,
which the employers had urged, of " protecting the con-
suming public." He granted a wage increase equal in
amount to what had been given in other clothing markets.
Again in April, 1921, the Board of Arbitration, though
granting a wage reduction, refused to lower the standards
of living of the workers attained by the union through
direct negotiation. The chairman did not accept the theory
of " wage liquidation " used so prevalently in these days of
wage reductions to justify, if possible, drastic wage cuts.
He confined himself to a wage adjustment in conformity
with changes in living cost.

THi

Of iflt

John E. Williams
Chairman, Board of Arbitration, 1912-1919

CHAPTER IX

INTRODUCTION

THE story of the rise of the clothing workers in Chicago
would be seriously incomplete without accounting for their
achievement of citizenship rights in the industry. The
growth of the workers' rights as free partners in the enter-
prise of producing clothing dates from the settlement of the
1910 strike. By that settlement the firm of Hart, Schaffner
and Marx agreed to the creation of a Board of Arbitration
with power to " fix a method for settlement of grievances, if
any, in the future." It was an act of industrial statesman-
ship on the part of one firm. But it can scarcely be supposed
that those responsible for the step taken foresaw how far-
reaching would be its consequences within a few years. They
were, in fact, laying the foundation for a system of industrial
government that was destined within a decade to revolution-
ize industrial relations in all the important clothing markets
of the country. Its influence upon the development of work-
ers' control in related industries cannot yet be adequately
estimated.

Up to the time of the strike, absolutism had held virtually
unbroken sway in the tailor shops of Chicago. Since then,
it has been forced out from one stronghold after another
through the organized power of the workers, until in 1919 it
was completely superseded by constitutional rule. Owner-
ship of a clothing factory at one time conferred upon the
employer almost unlimited personal authority over the lives
and happiness of the workers in his employ. To-day, its
claims are being increasingly subordinated to the needs of
the industry as a joint enterprise and a public utility. The
rights of the owners to all possible profits have yielded
ground to the demands of expert management for efficiency
on one side, and to the human rights and interests of the
workers on the other. Government in the industry to-day

192 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

means that personal and arbitrary authority has given way
to law and joint determination in all matters affecting the
workers' interests. The economic power of the parties to
production can express itself in the making and the changing
of the laws, but once established by agreement these laws
govern both, and cannot be ignored or violated with im-
punity.

This fundamental change must be understood in the light
of the growth of workers' organization and of the economic
power acquired by the workers as a consequence of organiza-
tion. But the characteristic fact is the manner in which the
union's power has been exercised in this case — the fact of
leadership with a vision. Other trade unions in this country
have been content to use their power negatively and obstruc-
tively. They have used it to place narrow restrictions upon
management, but have not desired to share also in manage-
ment's responsibilities. The interests of the industry were
not their concern. The Amalgamated, on the other hand,
has been keenly alive to the welfare and development of the
clothing industry. It has, indeed, identified its own perma-
nent interests with those of the industry, and is concerned to
see it grow into ever greater efficiency and prosperity. Be-
cause of this constructive policy, dictated by its long-range
outlook, the Amalgamated has been aggressively instru-
mental in setting up jointly with the clothing manufacturers
a constitutional form of government for the industry.
This government, culminating in the " impartial machinery,"
has been promoted by the union, who are willing to have it
curb their own freedom of action, if necessary, in the interest
of the industry. The union has voluntarily relinquished the
right of direct action or of using its economic strength with-
out stint or limit for gaining present advantages that might
injure the larger and more enduring interests of the industry
as a whole.

The impartial machinery under the Hart, Schaffner and
Marx agreements — its origin and constitution — has been de-
scribed in a previous chapter. By its help the parties con-
cerned have been able to develop in peace and to secure

INTRODUCTION 193

reasonable justice during the years of its operation. Its suc-
cess justified its extension to the rest of the market, when,
in 1919, the other houses came under a similar agreement
with the union. In this case it was not necessary to repeat
the experimental stages of the enterprise — its trials and
errors. The system was adopted in its full-grown form. A
Trade Board and a Board of Arbitration were set up, on the
pattern of the existing ones, with offices in the Medinah
Building. They were given jurisdiction over all the firms
belonging to; the three manufacturers' associations, which
were for this purpose united in the Chicago Industrial Fed-
eration of Clothing Manufacturers. These firms, either in-
dividually or in groups, engaged labor managers — men who
were experts in industrial relations — to administer their labor
policy in keeping with the requirements of the agreement,
and to represent them before the boards in all hearings affect-
ing their interests.

In jointly selecting the first impartial chairman of the
new Trade Board, the parties were fortunate in securing for
the place Professor Harry A. Millis, economist, of the Uni-
versity of Chicago. Professor James H. Tufts had early in
the year succeeded Mr. Williams as chairman of the Board
of Arbitration for Hart, Schaffner and Marx. He was now
chosen to preside also over the corresponding Board for the
Federation. When, toward the close of 1920, Professor
Tufts resigned owing to his absence from the city, he was
succeeded by Professor Millis. The vacancy created in the
Trade Board by the promotion of Professor Millis was pres-
ently filled by the appointment of Mr. Benjamin M. Squires,
who brought to the work the experience of a mediator in the
shipbuilding industry during the war.

Through the personality of Dr. Tufts and later of Dr.
Millis, the impartial machinery for the entire market has
from the outset been unified at the top. This unity facilitated
the carrying over to the recently organized houses of the
accumulated body of principle and precedent that had grown
out of some eight years' experience under the Hart, Schaffner
and Marx agreements. The new agreement was itself

194 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

modeled after the other in all its essential features. More-
over, as a result of the impartial chairman's decisions under
it there grew up a rule that on any point in dispute not
covered by the language of the new agreement, the practice
or precedent obtaining for Hart, Schaffner and Marx is to be
binding for all alike. Thus the whole Chicago industry is, in
effect, governed by a single collective agreement and a single
body of law.

Viewed from the standpoint of constitutional government,
the impartial machinery corresponds to the judiciary or the
courts. It comes into operation on the complaint of one or
both of the parties to adjust differences between them that
cannot be promptly settled by direct conference. It hears
and adjudicates these differences in accordance with rules
and principles laid down in the agreement and in previous
decisions under the agreement. In the absence of such
written law, the impartial chairman is guided by recognized
custom or usage in the market. Decisions of the boards,
insofar as they bear on the general principle or a market
situation, in distinction from a particular or unique condition,
in turn make new law through serving as precedents to
govern future cases. The Board of Arbitration, it is true,
is at least theoretically empowered to disregard past prece-
dents and even to modify the agreement itself in response to
new needs of the industry created by changing conditions.
In practice, however, the Board exercises this power con-
servatively. It endeavors, rather, to bring about such needed
changes in the fundamental law through the processes of
joint negotiation and agreement between the parties them-
selves. Legislation, as such, is properly their work, and the
method is that of collective bargaining.

The two functions — the making of law and its application
or interpretation — are not, however, sharply differentiated
in this industrial government. The making of the agreement
itself is, to be sure, the result of direct negotiation of the
union with the manufacturers. But this is only the ground-
work. Many arrangements and administrative details have
to be worked out from time to time on the basis of joint in-

INTRODUCTION 195

vestigation and weighing of the facts. For this purpose semi-
administrative, semi-legislative committees or commissions
have to be created. They are frequently appointed or even
presided over by the impartial chairman, who decides in the
event of disagreement. Occasions are numerous, moreover,
when the chairman by means of mediation can bring about
agreement between the parties even after the dispute has been
brought to a hearing. He thereby obviates the necessity for
imposing a decision that, while it would be obeyed, might not
improve the mutual attitude of the parties. When he does
render a decision, it does not merely express his private
opinion on the merits of the case before him. Nor, on the
other hand, is it merely a technical adjudication of the issue
on the basis of formal rules or precedents derived from past
experience. The practice of the adjustment boards has been
even better than their theory. It has consistently aimed at
concrete justice and has attained this aim within the obvious
limitations imposed by the character of our industrial situa-
tion, so full of underlying conflict.

CHAPTER X

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT

AN essential condition of an efficient industry is efficient
management. An indispensable element in efficient manage-
ment is the power of initiative and execution. In other
words, those who manage the industry must be left free to
devise such new methods and processes as they conceive to
be of technical advantage, and they must have the authority
to introduce these changes without undue resistance from
the workers affected by them. In an industry where the
workers have no voice or recognized rights, the management
theoretically has a free hand in giving orders, however these
may affect the interests of the workers. It does not follow,
however, that such autocratic management is the most effi-
cient. On the contrary, the resistance of the workers to in-
novations which they regard as harmful to their own inter-
ests— either by way of undermining wage standards, of
speeding up, or of reducing employment — is merely aggra-
vated. It is apt to take the form of ca'canny or sabotage,
just because there is no effective organization to give expres-
sion to their discontent and to obtain redress.

It is different in the clothing industry today. With a
powerful organization of the workers to afford them pro-
tection in their interests and their standards, it has become
safe to entrust management with the powers and functions
needed for efficient administration. It has become safe, be-
cause the orders of the management are now of a provisional
character rather than, as formerly, absolute and undebatable.
They can be challenged by the workers in regular form and
reviewed by an impartial board with respect to their effect
on the workers' rights and standards. If they invade these
rights of the workers or in any manner conflict with the in-
tent of the agreement, orders of management can be vetoed
by the Trade Board and the workers compensated for any

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 197

loss actually sustained by them through the execution of
such orders. On the workers' side there is the obligation to
carry out all orders given by the management, and to abide
the decision of the Trade Board in cases of dispute. Neither
they nor their officials are to set themselves up as judges of
the legality of the management's action by resorting to direct
action against it. In a joint memorandum supplementary to
the Hart, Schaifner and Marx Agreement of 1919, this point
was covered in the following language: ' The function of
interpreting the agreement belongs to the Trade Board and
Board of Arbitration. The responsibility of management
requires the giving of orders promptly and authoritatively.
In order to protect the employes and maintain the integrity
of the agreement the Trade Board shall have the right to
set aside and annul any executive order that is in conflict
with the agreement or decisions. Such executive orders, how-
ever, are valid until thus passed upon and will be obeyed by
the employes."

By making executive orders subject to protest by the union „
and to review and veto by the impartial machinery, the man-
agement gains a desirable freedom of initiative while the
workers secure a guarantee against injury to their rights
and interests. The limits upon the practical freedom of
action of management are drawn at the point where it im-
pinges upon the essential interests and rights of the workers
and their organization.

Within these practical limits the workers as an organized
body respect the rights of management to conduct the in-'
dustry in accordance with its own insight, policies and
methods. They do not seek to obstruct -the executive activi-
ties of management where these do not run counter to the
guaranteed rights of the workers. On the contrary, to the
extent that the purposes of management aim at the orderly
and efficient operation of the industry, the union endorses
them and agrees to co-operate with the management in mak-
ing possible their realization. This relationship of a mutual
recognition of rights as a guiding principle for the parties
in all their dealings has been formulated by Mr. Williams

198 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

in the preamble to the Hart, Schaffner and Marx agreement.
It reads, in part, as follows:

" On the part of the employer it is the intention and expecta-
tion that this compact of peace will result in the establishment
and maintenance of a high order of discipline and efficiency
by the willing co-operation of union and workers, rather than
by the old method of surveillance and coercion ; that by the
exercise of this discipline all stoppages and interruptions of
work, and all wilful violations of rules will cease; that good
standards of workmanship and conduct will be maintained and
a proper quantity, quality and cost of production will be as-
sured ; and that out of its operation will issue such co-operation
and good will between employers, foremen, union and workers
as will prevent misunderstanding and friction and make for
good team work, good business, mutual advantage and mutual
respect."

In conceding to the employer this measure of recognition
of his rights, the workers do not compromise their own
rights in any sense. Rather do they assure themselves,
through a give-and-take relationship, of a fuller and freer
recognition of their own rights and purposes on the part
of the employer. These rights and purposes of the workers,
moreover, concern not merely the specific shop conditions
and working standards necessary for their welfare as em-
ployes. They concern also those more general and per-
manent interests pertaining to the strength and prosperity
of the workers' organization as an agency of industrial
government.

Chief among these permanent interests of the workers for
the sake of which they have undertaken the responsibilities
of the agreement, is that of building up within the industry
a stable and effective organization of their own. They un-
derstand that upon the maintenance of such an organization
ultimately depends the protection of all their concrete in-
terests as workers. And they have asserted this understand-
ing as a fundamental purpose of the agreement in another
paragraph of the Hart, Schaffner and Marx preamble, as
follows :

" On the part of the union it is the intention and expecta-
tion that this compact will, with the co-operation of the em-

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 199

ployer, operate in such a way as to maintain, strengthen, and
solidify its organization, so that it may be made strong- enough,
and efficient enough, to co-operate as contemplated in the pre-
ceding paragraph ; and also that it may be strong enough to
command the respect of the employer without being forced to
resort to militant or unfriendly measures."

Taken in conjunction with the paragraph previously
quoted, this statement in practice implies nothing less than
the creation of a working partnership between the employer
and the union for the administration of all industrial rela-
tions. Such a joint government of the industry on its human
or labor side represents an advanced stage of what for want
of a better term is known as

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Collective bargaining is the law-making function in in- ^
dustry. It does not supplant the administrative function of
management, but lays down the rules of the game — sets the
limits and standards, which the management must observe
in its dealings with the people. It is the method by which
the people through their representatives exercise control over
the conditions of their work and pay. This method did not
spring into existence full-fledged in the clothing industry.
It could not become operative until the union had been offi-
cially recognized by the employer. The agreement of 1911
made no provision for collective bargaining. Under it the
company retained unrestricted freedom of action, while con-
ceding to the people the right of presenting their grievances
before an Arbitration Committee, and later before the Trade
Board. Since that time, with the growing strength of the
union more and more ground has been won for the operation
of collective bargaining, until today all " labor conditions,"
or matters affecting the workers' interests, broadly conceived,
are included within its scope.

Collective bargaining as a union device has the double pur-
pose of promoting the material interests of all its members
and at the same time protecting and strengthening its own
existence as an organization. Both of these purposes are

200 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

/j/best served in a competitive industry like the clothing in-
dustry by a policy of standardization. In pursuance of such
a policy, the union endeavors to make an agreement with
all the employers in the market, and even in other competing
markets, covering certain basic standards and working con-
ditions. In this way competition among employers may not
be carried on at the expense of their workers and no undue
advantage is enjoyed by one portion of the industry at the
expense of another. No employer may depart from such
standards, once jointly established, unless a change is au-
thorized by further joint action of the parties to the agree-
ment, i.e., by collective bargaining. The standards are like-

v] wise binding upon the workers. Thus, the union is ready
to bring pressure to bear, through the impartial machinery,
upon any employer who should attempt to alter wage or
j working standards in his factory without its consent. On
the other hand, it is prepared to disavow or penalize the
action of any of its own members who should connive at
such unlawful procedure, whether it involve a lowering or
a raising of standards.

Individual bargaining may bring present benefits to small
groups of workers here and there who are more fortunate
than their fellows in respect to skill or scarcity. But such
benefits as these are usually obtained at the expense of other
workers in the industry, and in any case are neither perma-
nent nor secure gains, for they lack the supporting power of
the union to make them so. Individual bargaining, more-
over, tends to undermine the strength and solidarity of the
union itself and to render less effective its collective bargain-
ing power. If workers are led to look to the employer rather
than to their own organization for advancing their interests,
they may, if they are exceptional individuals, receive favors
and promotion at his hands. But for the great mass of
workers, at least, it remains as true as ever that what the
employer has given under conditions of labor shortage he
can also take away with interest when conditions change in
his favor — unless the union energetically interferes to pro-
tect the gains.

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 201

The benefits of collective bargaining do not, however, ac-
crue exclusively to the union and its members. The em-
ployers, especially the more stable and responsible among
them, come in for a share of the beneficial effects. One of -
the outstanding effects of collective bargaining is its stabiliz-
ing tendency. Standardization7~as We" hare seenT rules out,
scrfaT aT'possTBle, all differential advantages of the less over
the more scrupulous employer on the score of lower wage
or working conditions. It likewise eliminates competition
among workers for jobs on such a basis. Finally, it mini-
mizes fluctuations in the relative bargaining strength of the
two parties from one season to another and reduces friction. s^
The total effect of these tendencies is the stabilization of the
labor market and of labor relations in the industry. The
employer stands to gain by stability, inasmuch as it enables
him to figure his labor costs in advance with some degree of
certainty, and releases energies otherwise absorbed in the
unproductive business of petty bargaining with his labor.
For these and similar reasons do progressive employers favor
the system of collective bargaining, once they have been in-
duced to embark upon it by coming under the agreement
with the union.

And yet, collective bargaining involves an unwelcome
check upon the power of management to exercise functions
both legislative and executive. It is for this reason that
instances are not altogether rare of employers attempting to
proceed either by individual bargaining with their own em-
ployes, or by executive order without consulting either the
people or their representatives. In either event the union
has recourse to the Trade Board. The former of the two
modes of procedure named seems to have been followed by
the employer in a certain case1* in which the union com-
plained to the Trade Board that the manager of the factory
had introduced an "honor system" into the finishing section.
About fifteen finishers had been put in a separate class. The

* The numbers above the line refer to written decisions of the Trade and
Arbitration Boards, which will be found indexed under the corresponding num-
bers, i.e., in the order of their citation in the text, in Appendix I.

202 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

coats of these finishers were not systematically examined as
were those of the other finishers, though they were examined
occasionally. The union claimed that the system was breed-
ing dissension and jealousy among the girls and was objec-
tionable from the standpoint of the unity and efficiency of the
factory as well as the organization. The company replied
that the arrangement was satisfactory and efficient, tended
to put a premium on good work, and had occasioned no dis-
pute or dissension. As an administrative measure, the com-
pany contended, it was allowable and outside the jurisdiction
of the Trade Board unless it could be shown that the workers
were injured thereby.

In dealing with this problem the Trade Board rested its
decision upon a precedent established in an earlier case,2
where off-pressers had been divided into " honor men " and
others directly under the control of the examiners. In that
case the following ruling had been given: ' The chairman
of the Trade Board will not undertake to rule in the matter
beyond the point of ordering the installation of one com-
prehensive system, leaving to the company the selection of
which of the two systems above mentioned it desires to sub-
stitute for the present scheme." The effect of that ruling
^ /was to require equal treatment for all the workers in the sec-
V tion and to deny the company the right of according prefer-
ential treatment to some and thereby discriminating against
others. The company appealed the case to the Board of
Arbitration, and the chairman ruled as follows:

" The appeal is made on * * * an alleged limitation of
the administrative powers of the company by the Trade Board
* * * The chairman believes that the administrative power
remains in the hands of the company to be used by it in the in-
terest of discipline and efficiency, subject to review by the board
if invasion of the rights of the worker is charged by the union.
In the present instance, the result of the rule introduced by the
company designed to promote the efficiency by creating a roll
of honor seems to have been unfortunate, and to have impaired
the efficiency of the union by creating dissatisfaction and dis-
harmony among its members ; and its discontinuance is, there-
fore, directed. The chairman doubts the wisdom of promoting

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 203

efficiency by creating distinctions between workers, and suggests
that the administrative power of the company might have better
results if used some other way."

Having cited the foregoing decision, the Trade Board
held that " the two cases are quite similar except that the
complaint of the finishers has not been accompanied by a
stoppage. The same ruling of the Board of Arbitration
should apply." The Trade Board accordingly directed that
the distinction between the finishers be abolished and that
the system of examination include all the finishers.

It appears, then, that the employer is limited in his choice
of means for promoting efficiency to such devices as do not
create invidious distinctions between workers, or otherwise
" impair the efficiency of the union ". In another instance3
the people complained of the use by the company of a black-
board to designate publicly pressers who fell off in their
quality and amount of work. The union contended that such
action should not have been taken without consulting the
people; also that the use of the blackboard for general in-
structions was not objected to, but the entry of the personal
numbers or names was intended as public discrimination be-
tween the men and aroused a just resentment as an unwar-
ranted form of discipline. The company maintained that
the board was used simply to promote better efficiency among
the pressers by distinguishing between good and bad
pressers, and that it was effective, as the notation
" No. 2423 had 8 coats returned yesterday," had
since led to his doing better work. After hearing the
evidence the Trade Board held that " the use of the black-
board in giving publicity to names or numbers of pressers
who fell off in quality or production is objectionable as a
method of discipline. The element of publicity in such a mat-
ter is what makes such a practice obnoxious, and undoubt-
edly led to the shock and resentment described by the wit-
nesses of the people. * * * The use of the blackboard in
this respect is a device of questionable usefulness and apt to
arouse much more opposition and less co-operation in doing

204 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the work." Its use was accordingly ordered to be confined
to general instructions.

LABOR CONDITIONS

The point at which the freedom of management to act at
its own discretion gives way to the more democratic pro-
cedure of collective bargaining is the point where established
or customary labor conditions and standards are involved.
Management is free to organize and reorganize the processes
of production up to the point where these touch the interests
of the workers in the form of change in their wages, hours,
or other conditions of work. Such change can be effected
only with the approval of the union, subject to appeal to the
Trade Board. The issue is brought out in respect to work-
ing hours, or more strictly, the starting hour, in the follow-
ing case4 decided by the Trade Board. The firm in this
case agreed with its cutters to change to a 10-hour schedule,
beginning work at 7 :30 A. M. instead of 8 :00, and counting
the first half -hour of each day as overtime. The union ob-
jected to this arrangement, claiming that they could not
permit to have them put in any overtime before 8 A- M.,
that being the starting hour agreed upon. The firm con-
tended that it was within the functions of the management
to decide as to what constitutes a proper starting hour, and
requested the Trade Board to determine:

" 1. Whether or not the management may order operations
begun at its discretion, provided the hour is reasonable.

" 2. What constitutes a reasonable starting hour in the
morning."

At the hearing before the Trade Board the union made
no objection to the starting hour being set at 7:30, if this
was to be the regular arrangement and consistently applied
by the firm. It was also agreed between the parties that
there should be no overtime at the beginning of the day's
work. There remained, then, only the first question, as to
the authority of the management to order a change in the
starting hour. The union maintained that such a matter

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 205

must be settled by collective bargaining. In deciding this
issue, Professor Millis, as chairman of the Trade Board,
ruled as follows:

" The question of principle raised in this case is an important
one. It is a question as to how far the employer may exercise
his discretion subject only to complaint of unreasonable exer-
cise, and as to how far matters are to be controlled by collective
bargaining or, that failing, by decision of an impartial tribunal.
The Trade Board is of the opinion that needless restrictions
upon management must be avoided, but that if the agree-
ment is to operate efficiently, what may be called * Labor Con-
ditions ' must be determined by collective bargaining. Thus
the employer may make a change in his equipment without agree-
ment, the worker having a right to expect an adjustment if the
conditions of his work are changed, but a price for the new
work must be decided upon by collective bargaining before a
worker may be required to perform it. The question is whe-
ther the starting hour is a * question of management ' or a
* labor condition ' to such an extent that it should be changed
only by agreement, or in the event of failure to agree, by arbi-
tration. The Trade Board holds that the starting hour having
been at 8 o'clock in this case, it should not have been changed
by executive order * * * "

In matters that come under the head of " labor conditions "
and that properly call for collective bargaining and agree- L
ment, the obligation to confer and endeavor to agree rests
not only on the employer but also on the union. Collective
bargaining operates as a check upon direct action of either
party. In such a matter as instituting overtime work, the
initiative in the Chicago market has customarily lain with
the management. But if the union for any, reason objects
to overtime being worked, it has recourse first to conference
and then to the Trade Board. In a case of this character5
a firm complained of a deputy for prohibiting overtime work
by the cutters. The firm had instructed its cutters to work
overtime. The cutters were willing. The shop chairman,
however, called up the union and the union official prohibited
the shop chairman from working overtime, thus counter-
manding the orders of the firm. The firm contended before
the Trade Board that this action of the deputy tended to

206 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

undermine discipline; that the question of overtime work
was for it to decide; that the deputy took the law into his
own hands and did not confer when he thought overtime
should not be worked ; and that he produced what was in ef-
fect a stoppage. The deputy gave as one reason for his ac-
tion, the feeling that some cutters should not work overtime
while others are unemployed. He advanced the claim of the
union that overtime is not a right, but a concession willingly
made by it in the busy season but withheld when there is un-
employment. Finally, he maintained that if the union official
issues an order countermanding an order issued by the firm,
the firm has recourse to the Trade Board.

In passing on the disputed question of procedure in this
case, the Trade Board held that " past practice was not far
from right. The practice has been for the firm to decide
when it wants overtime work. If its decision is unsatisfac-
tory to the deputy, he should not issue a countermanding
order, but should take up the matter in conference with the
labor manager. If no agreement is arrived at in conference,
the matter should be taken to the impartial machinery. We
must not have order and countermanding order. Divergent
interests are not to be conserved in this way."

If the scope of collective bargaining is to be co-extensive
with " labor conditions," it must, of course, include the whole
question of wage determination and adjustment; for this
touches most closely the interests of every worker. In our
later discussion of the adjustment of piece prices and speci-
fications, it will be made evident that this entire field is one
for joint control by management and workers' organization.
Hardly a step can be taken here by the employer without
either consultation and agreement with union representatives
or the reserved right of the workers affected to appeal to
the impartial machinery for review and redress. The pro-
cedure of collective bargaining applies, moreover, to in-
creases in wages as well as to their reduction. This is for
the reason, already suggested, that the interest of all the
workers and of the market as a whole must be consulted if
injustice and instability are to be avoided. Individual bar-

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 207

gaining may solve a particular employer's problem at a par-
ticular time with reference to a particular worker or section.
But it is almost certain to create new problems, if not for
him, at any rate for other employers and for the union, that
are not so readily disposed of.

In a case in point6 the union filed complaint with the Trade
Board to the effect that the foreman in a certain house had
violated both the agreement and the Board of Arbitration
award by inducing a former employee to return to the firm
by offering to pay her 3 cents for an operation for which
the established price was 2.4 cents. The union requested the
Trade Board to instruct the foreman with reference to his
province. Acting upon the union's request, Chairman Millis
ruled, in part, as follows :

" When this foreman bargained to advance the piece rate
from 2.4 to 3 cents, he acted contrary to the agreement, for
all piece rates must be made by collective bargaining. Fore-
men have no power to change piece prices. It is entirely out of
their province. Moreover, the foreman's action was in viola-
tion of the Arbitrator's award (of December, 1919), for the
award provides that approved piece rates must not be changed
during the light weight season except upon the Trade Board's
recommendation and the Arbitration Board's approval. Fur-
thermore, the action was highly objectionable because it tends
to beget discontent, instability in the market, and direct action.
These the manufacturers, the union, and the impartial ma-
chinery have been trying to remove."

The same principle holds for increasing the wages of week
workers. Such increases are to be effected through confer-
ence with the union representative and not by executive au-
thority. In one instance involving this principle,7 the union
complained to the Trade Board that a firm had given in-
creases voluntarily to certain workers, although refusing to
admit the justice of complaints presented by the union in
behalf of other workers who were underpaid, for three of
whom it specifically requested increases. The firm admitted
having raised the wage of one worker from $27 to $30 with-
out request from the worker or the deputy. This worker
was said by the union to have boasted of the fact that she

208 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

got an increase without asking for it and to have aggravated
the dissatisfaction of other workers whose requests for in-
creases had been denied. The union stated that many com-
plaints had been taken up in behalf of low-paid week workers
but that practically no increases had been granted by the
firm; and the deputy found it highly embarrassing when the
firm granted increases on its own initiative. The Trade
Board reaffirmed the rule of collective bargaining to govern
such cases as this in the following statement:

" * * * The firm should not place the union in the em-
barrassing position of seeming to oppose an increase. If it is
felt that an increase is called for it should be taken up with
the deputy, who is after all closest to the workers and must
answer their complaints. If the workers find that they can get
more by dealing individually with the firm than by laying their
complaints before their shop representatives or deputies, effec-
tive control — without which the agreement is meaningless — will
be lost. It is as much to the interest of the firm as it is to the
interest of the workers to see to it that the procedure laid down
in the agreement for the handling of complaints is adhered to
strictly. The union has a right to expect that the agreement
' will operate in such a way as to maintain and strengthen its
organization so that it may be strong enough to cooperate, as
contemplated by this agreement, and to command the respect
of the employer.' '

The Trade Board then directed the firm to take up with the
union for further consideration the complaints of the above
three workers cited in the petition.

A situation combining some of the features of both of the
preceding was presented to the Trade Board in another case8
in which the union complained that the firm had violated the
spirit of the agreement by individual bargaining, refusing to
grant an increase on certain work when the union deputy
took the matter up with the labor department, and later
granting an increase voluntarily after the people had gone
on strike. In passing judgment on the firm's action in this
case, the impartial chairman stated:

" The Trade Board has found it necessary on several occa-
sions to review individual adjustments made by foremen after

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 209

authorized representatives of the workers had failed to secure
redress. In each case the Board has condemned the practice
and pointed out its consequences. For the most part the ad-
justments have been permitted to stand, as a self-imposed
penalty, in spite of the danger that the workers might be en-
couraged to resort to direct action to adjust future grievances.
The increase granted by the foreman in this case is to stand,
of course. The chairman of the Trade Board would state very
frankly, moreover, that he would regard action of this sort as
sufficient ground for discharge if repeated. The firm cannot
afford to have in its employ a foreman who exercises so little
judgment on issues of such vital importance. The workers
complain about their rates. The foreman turns a deaf ear.
The deputy attempts to secure an adjustment. The foreman,
will not consider it. The workers strike and the foreman pro-
ceeds to seek them out and offer them an increase to come back.
What respect the workers must have for orderly procedure;
what confidence in their deputy, under such circumstances ! If,
one were to attempt deliberately to destroy the agreement and
break down effective control by the organization, it would be dif-
ficult to find a more effective way than that followed by the fore-
man in this case. The Board hopes that the organization will
be at pains to convince the workers that the adjustment is to
stand not because they forced it by direct action, but as a
penalty upon the firm for the acts of its foreman."

A more common misuse of administrative power on the
part of management than the increase of wages by executive
action or individual bargaining, is the attempt to reduce them,
as a rule indirectly, without the consent of the union. Since
the wages of piece workers are intimately dependent not
only on the quality, but also on the nature and the; method of
work required of them, even a slight change introduced in
any of these will be immediately reflected in the workers'
earnings. Changes in each of these elements of the work
are being constantly made. The decision as to what these
changes are to be rests logically with the management, since
management has the responsibility for styles, sales, and pro-
duction policy, and must be free to adopt the most efficient
means for carrying out the policy. But the putting into
effect of the management's decision requires the consent and
co-operation of the union. The specification embodying the

210 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

exact definition of the task, no less than the piece-work rate
corresponding to it, is a matter for joint negotiation and
agreement. Neither can be imposed on the workers, even
provisionally, by the management acting on its own initiative.
Nor, once established by collective bargaining, can rates or
specifications be altered by administrative action. Changes
do not become effective until approved by the joint Rate
Committee, or, on appeal, by the Trade Board. " The firm
cannot proceed alone " in these matters.

It follows from these premises that even when a worker's
operation is reduced, the management is not free to reduce
his piece rate in the same proportion without first securing
the consent of the worker's representative to the change.
Even when the proposed reduction in the operation involves
merely the withdrawal of a differential previously established
by agreement with the union, such a reduction may not be
put into effect without again being authorized by the repre-
sentatives of both parties. In an early decision by Mr. Wil-
liams,9 dealing with this question, it was ordered that " Any
claims for such withdrawal should take the course of any
other change of price and be acted on by the price com-
mittee before it can take effect." And the principle under-
lying this procedure was enunciated by him in the following
much-quoted language:

" Automatic reductions, or reductions by direct or executive
action, are to be discouraged as creating a sense of injustice and
wrong. Reductions should not first be made by the company
and the onus of proving them wrong placed upon the workers.
It is clearly the intention of the agreement that no change of
price or change of work equivalent to a change of price should
be made without being submitted to the price committee."

The restriction on the powers of management here laid
down is dictated not by any desire to limit the employer's
initiative in matters of economy or of technical improvement.
Rather is it called for by the necessity of safeguarding
against impairing the wage and working standards of the
people on the one hand, and the welfare of the organization
on the other. And this is possible only by giving them

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 211

through their representatives a check upon the action of
management at every point where changes in price or in
work are to be introduced. This balanced adjustment be-
tween administrative initiative and the protection of the
workers' legitimate interests is the aim and purpose of most
of the joint machinery, of which the price committee is an
important part. In the course of the same decision from-
which we have already quoted,9 Mr. Williams stated this
relationship as follows:

" The company should be free to institute improvement in
methods of operation; but if the proposed changes are suffi-
ciently important to impair the earning power of the worker,
or to give rise to a reasonable belief that it will cause such
impairment, the change should not be instituted by executive
order but through the price committee; and if such change
requires a period of trial before it can be tested and approved,
the workers shall be paid by the hour during such period of
trial * * * "

The freedom of the management to introduce changes,
however small in its own judgment, is sure to come in con-
flict sooner or later with the instinctive conservatism of the
workers, who see in every change in conditions the possibility
of an attack on their existing standards. The conflict is
avoided where the workers' interests are safeguarded through
having the change introduced on terms agreed upon between
the representatives of both parties. But employers fre-
quently consider it to their own interest to introduce changes
by direct action or executive order. This is so, first, because
it seems a more expeditious method, and secondly, because
it enables them to reap the full advantage of the innovation.
Accordingly, the clash of interests occurs at the point where
the employer proceeds to make practical use of his freedom
of administrative initiative. In view of the relative waste-
fulness of hour work, he is under inducement to introduce
minor changes in work without prior reference of the matter
to the committee' or to the Trade Board. The result is
usually resistance on the part of the worker and probably
of his shop representative. This conflict of authority fre-

212 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

quently leads to the discharge of the insubordinate worker
and not rarely, also, to a stoppage of other workers in pro-
/ test. Direct action on the part of the management thus
defeats its own ends.

CONFLICT OF AUTHORITY

The problem and the way out are presented concretely
in the case of S, a " cleaner," who had been discharged for
demanding hour work when a slight change was introduced
in her operation. She had been supported in her demand by
the shop chairman. The Trade Board ordered her reinstate-
ment. The company appealed the case, and Chairman Wil-
liams of the Board of Arbitration made the following
ruling10 which, on account of its far-reaching import, is here
quoted at length:

" In this case the old question of how to avoid friction over
the introduction of small differentials again arises. The com-
pany appeals to the board to give a ' decision which will be
a plain guide as to the right course of action when difficult
questions arise.' It especially wants a ruling that will pre-
vent conflicts of authority between foreman and chairman, and
also avoid the wasteful alternative of hour work.

" The special problem set for the chairman in this appeal is
this : How can sufficient power be left in the hands of the fore-
man to permit him to make needed changes in operations, while
at the same time safeguarding that power so that it can not be
used to force disadvantageous changes on the workers?

" Any answer the chairman may make to this question must
be consistent with decisions previously made, which have become
part of the working structure of the agreement. Among them
is this : * Reductions should not first be made by the company
and the onus of proving them wrong placed upon the workers.
It is clearly the intention of the agreement that no change of
price or change of work equivalent to a change of price should
be made without being submitted to the price committee.'

" Let us ask what is the occasion of the friction and misun-
derstanding for which a remedy is asked in this type of cases.
It is usually a case where the foreman seeks to introduce a
change of work which he deems trifling and negligible, but which
the workers think is sufficiently important to require considera-
tion. Our problem is, therefore, how to proceed when differ-
ences of this kind arise.

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 213

" The company's solution is that in the interest of efficient
administration the foreman's power to institute the change
should be unrestricted, subject to correction later if error is
found. In reply to this the union contends that to leave this
unchallengeable power in the hands of the foreman would deprive
the workers of the protection assured them by the agreement.
Also, it would upset the entire practice under which we are
working and to which the people have become educated, and
would be likely to create far more friction than it would remove.

" After due consideration, the chairman is of the opinion
that the worker has an interest in this question of the initiation
of changes of which he cannot be properly deprived and which
it would be difficult to adequately safeguard by subsequent
adjudication. He cannot therefore agree to a solution of the
difficulty by giving the foreman a free hand in its adjustment.

" Is there, then, no remedy? Must we continue to endure
the friction and waste complained of?

" Clearly, there can be no remedy that ignores the claim of
the workers. There is no authoritative short cut by which a
dispute can be settled by the dictum of the foreman. With this
fact in mind, the chairman has thought over the question with
the hope of reaching a workable solution. He now submits the
following :

" Whenever a change needs to be introduced, which is likely
to give rise to objection or dispute, the foreman should take
steps to have it authorized by the representative of the workers,
who should at the same time see that their interests in the matter
are safeguarded. The union member of the price committee
should attend to the call as promptly as practicable. After
hearing the nature of the change proposed, he should, if con-
sistent with justice and just claim of the workers, direct the
section to proceed with the work pending the formal disposition
of the matter by the price committee. The chairman recom-
mends that hour work be not insisted on except where neces-
sary to get work done and there is no other practicable way
' to compensate the worker. It is hoped that a friendly con-
ference between representatives of the company and of the
union would result in the adjustment of disputed points and in
the prevention of delay, of friction, and of needless hour work.

" It is obvious that such a proceeding as is here recommended
would be void of useful results unless both parties are animated
by the desire to be mutually helpful and are free from petty
arrogance and pride of power. The chairman does not impose
it as a new interpretation, or a new order, but as a helpful sug-
gestion of how to use the powers already implicit in the agree-

214 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

ment and in daily use in other directions, to solve the vexatious
questions attending the adjustment of small variations and
changes of work.

" The decision of the Trade Board in regard to the reinstate-
ment of S is affirmed."

The issue involved in a change of work introduced by
order of the management may be more than a question of
j price on the new work. It may be the customary right of
the worker to his operation, his vested interest in the work
itself. Ordinarily, the employer is the best judge of the
value from the standpoint of efficiency of a proposed change
in the method of organization of work in his factory. But
the standpoint of efficiency alone cannot be decisive if it
conflicts seriously with the interests of the workers as guar-
anteed or implied in the agreement. For then the innova-
tion is certain to create enough discontent and resentment on
the workers' part to make of it — apart from its injustice—
a wasteful rather than an economical step. It is, therefore,
necessary that the union should exercise a check upon the
power of management to introduce changes in work by ex-
ecutive action. This applies particularly to such changes in
work as menace the rights and interests of the workers, over
and above the immediate question of pay. To provide this
protection to the workers against unfavorable changes in
the character and conditions of their work, they have the
right of having disputed changes in specifications as well
as in prices passed upon not only by the union representative
on the price committee but in case of disagreement also
by the impartial machinery. The agreement provides, as
follows, when dissatisfaction arises over change of price
or working conditions: " It is believed that the agreement
provides a remedy for every such grievance that can arise,
and all complainants are urged and expected to present
their cases to the proper officials and await an adjustment
* * *." One type of problem to which this general pro-
vision refers is exemplified and constructively dealt with in
the following case,11 decided by the Board of Arbitration in
June, 1915:

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 215

The company in this case decided to combine the work of
sewing collar pieces with the work of armhole basting, thus
uniting the work of two sections, and asked the Trade Board
to fix a price for the joint operation. The Trade Board
held that the agreement did not require the armhole basters
to do the work of sewing collar pieces. The company ap-
pealed on the ground that the board had exceeded its author-
ity in limiting the power of the company to either combine
or subdivide sections, and asked for an order requiring the
board to fix a price for the work described in the speci-
fications.

The union replied that the work of these two sections was
in several ways incompatible; that it would work hardship
on the armhole basters, compensation for whom could not be
equitably calculated; and that while it irremediably injured
the armhole basters, the joining of the two sections would
give no appreciable advantage to the company, either in
economy or efficiency.

Chairman Williams thereupon recorded his opinion, as
follows :

" The real issue involved in this case is not so much the obli-
gation of the Trade Board to fix a price on any given specifica-
tions, as the question of the conditions under which the com-
pany may exercise its right of uniting sections. This right,
like others not specifically limited by the agreement, inheres in
the company ; but it is to be exercised in such manner as not to
infringe on the rights of the workers. If they consider their
rights invaded they may file their complaint in the regular man-
ner and the case shall be adjudicated in the usual way * * *

" The company takes the position that it is obligatory on
the Trade Board to fix a price on any specifications submitted,
and that it is debarred from passing on the rightfulness of an}
such specifications by virtue of Section D of the general rules
which is as follows : * Whenever a change of price is contem-
plated the specifications shall be submitted to the Trade Boardj
and the specifications with the prices fixed therefor shall be
certified to the firm by the chairman of the board.'

" The chairman (of the Board of Arbitration) is of the
opinion that it was intended in this clause to confer the power
on the Trade Board to fix and certify prices whenever a ' change
of price ' was contemplated ; but that it was not intended to

216 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

deny the power of the board to pass on the rightfulness of
specifications if it appeared that the specifications worked such
injury to the workers that it could not be remedied in making
the price.

" The chairman is mindful of the necessity of giving the com-
pany the widest possible freedom of administration consistent
with the rights of the workers as provided for by the spirit and
purpose of the agreement, and due care should be exercised not
to hamper that freedom unless it is clearly necessary to do so
to protect the rights of the workers.

" The effort to sharply demarcate the rights and powers of
the parties is always difficult, and usually accompanied by strain
and tension and is provocative of ill-will and bad feeling.
Whenever a change is sought to be introduced by the company
calculated to raise the question of rights and powers, the chair-
man strongly urges that the matter be discussed in advance
with representatives of the union, and, if necessary, with the
chairman of the Trade Board, to the end that an agreement
be arrived at and the strain and bitterness caused by a conflict
about authority be avoided.

" In the appraisal of the facts in the present case, the chair-
man sees no reason to believe that the Trade Board has erred,
and its decision with respect to the disposition of the case under
consideration stands * * * '

The rights and powers of management relating to the
introduction by executive order of changes in work are, in
practice, narrowly limited. They are limited not only by the
demonstrable effect of such changes upon the immediate
earning power of the workers concerned. They are limited
also by the psychological effect upon these workers as mani-
fested in dissatisfaction or resentment on their part against
the change. Thus, where the people are on a week-work
basis and therefore not at all affected in their present earn-
ings by the innovation in their work, they may nevertheless
offer strenuous resistance to a technical improvement whose
future effect on unemployment they fear. This fear tends
to be excited by any change in the usages or customary
methods of work, and it can only be allayed by such assur-
ances against eventual injury to their interests as the union
may be in a position to give to its members. The principle
of joint procedure, as we have seen, had been established

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 217

by Mr. Williams for situations involving resistance of
workers to administrative changes on grounds of impairment
of earnings. In the following decision12 by Mr. Tufts a
similar principle was recommended for meeting the issue of
executive freedom of management where other interests of
workers are involved.

The case turned on the question as to the right of the
firm to issue executive orders, changing certain methods of
management, or usages, which were held by the people to
be established as shop usages or standards. The particular
instance before the Trade Board had been the case of a man
who had refused to obey an executive order by which the
height of the lay in the case of felt in the trimming room may
be in certain cases one hundred high instead of ninety. The
firm contended that irrespective of the merits of the par-
ticular order in question, the general principle is funda-
mental, namely, that the firm has the right to give an ex-
ecutive order which is not in violation of the agreement and
that complaint of such order should be brought before the
Trade Board in the method provided. The union contended
that the method of effecting changes in established usages
by executive order is calculated to produce friction and
unnecessary irritation and that it would be a better method
to take up such matters in advance with the representative of
the union.

The Board of Arbitration, to whom the Trade Board re-
ferred the case, found that

" An earlier ruling laid down a principle for changes which
affect the earning power of the worker, in which it used the
following language : * The company should be free to institute
improvement in methods of operation; but if the proposed
changes are sufficiently important to impair the earning power
of the worker, or to give rise to a reasonable belief that it will
cause such impairment, the change should not be instituted by
executive order, but through the price committee.' The present
case as to the height of the lay does not seem to fall under
this ruling because the trimmers are on the week work plan.
Nevertheless the Board believes that in cases where there is no
emergency requiring immediate action, and where there is

218 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

serious interference with established standards, it would be de-
sirable to proceed through expert commissions on which both
sides are represented. Such commissions are already in exist-
ence in the price committee and the cutters' commission. The
Board believes that it would be well to experiment with other
similarly constituted bodies. The Board will not proceed fur-
ther than to advise the Trade Board to appoint a commission
to investigate the problem. After experimentation with expert
commissions and with other methods which the company has
under consideration, it may be possible to give a decision which
shall be more general in character."

The criteria set up by the decision for determining in a
given situation whether or not management may exercise its
administrative powers to introduce a technical improvement,
are, first, the existence of an emergency, and, secondly, the
maintenance of established standards. Under these condi-
tions only, management may proceed to inaugurate the
change, leaving the workers free to resort to the impartial
machinery if they feel their interests jeopardized.

As a rule, however, changes are of such a nature that with
a spirit of forbearance on both sides, their application can
be effected without injury to any interest. A situation
exemplifying the need of mutual accommodation in these
matters is presented in the case13 of four finishers discharged
for refusal to call for supplementary coupons on cuffs on
overcoats. The deputy had refused to approve the use of the
coupons and had asked that the matter be put over for con-
sideration by the price committee or the Trade Board, neither
of which would be available for a couple of days. The chair-
man of the Trade Board ordered the reinstatement of the
workers with pay for lost time. The company appealed the
case to the Board of Arbitration, and Chairman Millis ruled
as follows:

" Cases of this kind should be and can easily be avoided by
proper cooperation. The loss to workers from the use of the
coupons would be negligible * * * The deputy could well
have been guided by Mr. Williams' advice in case 293, where he
said: ' The chairman is mindful of the necessity of giving the
company the widest possible freedom of administration, etc.'
If, however, the deputy was of the opinion that the use of the

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 219

coupons would involve the workers in a material loss, he could
well have cooperated in the absence of the company's price man
and the chairman of the Trade Board, by permitting the use
of the coupons and then asking for a revision of price, this to bt
retroactive.

" On the other hand, there was no emergency which would
call for such action as the company took. A similar matter
had been up before and the coupons were not used after com-
plaint was made by the deputy. The deputy complained in
this case and the matter could easily have awaited considera-
tion by the Trade Board as suggested in case 364 (* Whenever
a change needs to be introduced which is likely to give rise to
objection or dispute, etc.' see p. 207). There was no need
to proceed in such a manner as to cause workers to refuse to
obey orders, as they certainly would after they knew the deputy
had objected to what it was proposed to do * * * "

And the chairman ordered that the company should pay
for half the time lost by the workers.

Any change in work that involves no irremediable injury
to the worker's interests is expected to be accepted by him
pending an adjustment of price by the committee. To quote
again from a section of the agreement already referred to,
" All complainants are urged and expected to present their
cases to the proper officials and await an adjustment. If
anyone refuses to do this, and, instead, takes the law in his
own hands, by inciting a stoppage or otherwise foments dis-
satisfaction or rebellion, he shall, if convicted, be adjudged
guilty of disloyalty to the agreement and be subject to dis-
cipline by the Trade Board." This procedure represents the
obligation of the worker corresponding to his right to chal-
lenge the management's use of its administrative power in
introducing changes in work. A case14 partially illustrating
the principle is the following:

A finisher was discharged for refusing to sew on a hanger
to a coat after the coat had been cleaned. The circumstances
of the case were these : A few coats had come through with-
out hangers and labels and had been taken care of by the
finishers without objection. But by some oversight an un-
usual number came that week and the matter became at once
of some significance to the finishers as the increase in the

i

220 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

number of garments without hangers naturally increased the
work of the finishers. The chairman of the Trade Board
held that " Under the circumstances the girl should have con-
tinued to do the work as formerly and brought complaint for
additional work by reason of the disproportionate increase of
garments with shortages of hangers or labels." And the
Board directed the reinstatement of the girl without back
pay.

The interests immediately at stake whenever a change is
introduced are two. On one hand, there is the employer's
interest in making improvements with the least possible fric-
tion or interruption in production, and over against it is the
worker's interest in maintaining his wage standards and other
rights against infringement. The task of the joint machin-
ery, price committee and Trade Board, is to conserve both of
these interests. In many trivial changes, at least, no ir-
reparable harm accrues to the worker by accepting them pro-
visionally or under protest until his claim can be adjusted.
For this reason the Trade Board has ruled15 that in case of
dispute as to whether there is change of work of importance,
the worker should do the work and bring complaint for reim-
bursement. In such cases the management seems to be the
judge of the dispute, subject to review and reversal by the
Trade Board.

When a change of work is occasioned by a defect in the
material for which the management is responsible, the worker
is not under the same obligation to proceed with the work
pending an adjustment. Such change in work, not being
instituted in the interest of efficiency or technical improve-
ment, does not fall within the legitimate scope of the admin-
istrative powers of management. Nevertheless, this does not
mean that the agreement sanctions stoppages or any inter-
ruptions of work in such cases. The rights and duties of the
parties in a situation of this sort are illustrated by the dis-
position reached in the following case16: The question at
issue was whether or not the shop trimmers in a certain house
could be required to cut imperfectly perforated coupon
sheets or whether the company must make separations in such

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 221

cases just as it cares for other defects and shortages. The
Trade Board, reinstating one of the trimmers suspended for
insubordination, ruled as follows on the question: " The
trimmers were not required by specification or by practice to
use their shears in separating the sections of the coupon
cards. It is admitted that some of the cards were not prop-
erly perforated. Under the circumstances, the trimmers
seem to have followed the usual procedure where defective
work or shortages appear. They referred the defect to the
examiner, as they would any other defect or shortage. He
should have taken care of these defective cards."

The company appealed from this ruling of the Trade
Board, setting forth its position, in part, as follows : ' The
company concedes the right of any employe to make com-
plaint according to the rules of procedure and to be heard
by the Trade Board in case he is not satisfied with the adjust-
ment of the labor department * * *." The chairman of
the Board of Arbitration in upholding the decision of the
Trade Board, refused to lay down any general rule of pro-
cedure for cases of this type, but dealt with the particular
problem before him. " If the trimmers followed the usual
practice of referring defective work and shortages to the
examiner, and if the coupon sheets were unusually bad, both
of which were established as facts to the satisfaction of the
Trade Board, the Chairman finds no fault with the ruling
from which appeal is taken. He makes the observation that
it is undesirable to handle matters in such a way as to make
Trade Board litigation necessary. If there was dispute as
to what the trimmers were required to do, it could have been
placed before the price committee for immediate decision.
The holding up of the work or the placing of the trimmers on
hour work could have been avoided by having someone do
the cutting required on the improperly perforated coupons."

The right of the workers to request differentials in price >
with changes in their work, however slight, is in practice un-
limited. In the case cited below an unsuccessful attempt to
limit it was made by an employer. In this case17, the Trade
Board ruled that a differential requested by the union in

222 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

behalf of certain sleeve makers was warranted by the diffi-
culty of handling the shady goods, and referred the pricing
of such a differential to the members of the rate-making com-
mittee. The case was appealed by the company, and the
chairman of the Board of Arbitration entered the following
ruling:

" The essential principle involved in these * * * cases is
* * * in effect an assertion on the part of the company that
trifling variations in operation are made the ground for asking
that differentials be allowed, causing an excessive draft on the
time of the price committee, increasing the amount of hour work
unnecessarily, and interfering with the free flow of work through
the sections. As a remedy, it suggests that a minimum line
of variation be established, below which no claim for differen-
tials shall be entertained.

" The union contends that no such frequency of claims for
differentials exists as is represented by the company; that the
total number of such cases in the past year can be counted on
the fingers of one hand; and that it is not possible to modify
the present practice without depriving the union of safeguards
necessary to protect the rights of the workers.

" The chairman after listening to a long and searching dis-
cussion of the points involved in this controversy, finds himself
unable to propose any remedy that he feels sure would be an
improvement on the present system. Price fixing is a difficult
art. We cannot expect it to be 100% perfect, and it is a
matter of never-ending surprise and admiration that our price
committee gets such excellent results as it does. The chairman,
for the present, prefers to leave the curing of any avoidable
defects in the system to the expert skill and intelligence of the
price committee rather than take the chance of making it worse
by any crude device that he can invent. He hopes they will
continue their patient and efficient cooperation, that they will
continue their efforts to reduce hour work and litigation to a
minimum, and do all in their power to so perfect the system of
price making that all reason for complaint may be removed and
that the proper interests of both parties may be safeguarded.
He believes it wisest, however, to leave the power to bring these
ends to pass where the Trade Board has left them, in the hands
of the Price Committee itself."

Prof. Harry A. Millis,

Chairman, Trade Board, Wholesale

Clothiers, etc., 1919-1920
Chairman, Board of Arbitration,
1920-

James Mullenbach,
Chairman, Trade
Board, Hart, Schaff-
ner and Marx, 1912-

Prof. James H. Tufts,
Chairman, Board of
1919-1920

Arbitration,

tut

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 228

JOINT PROCEDURE

Changes in work and in methods of work vary greatly as
to the circumstances under which they are introduced and as
to the manner and degree in which they affect the interests of
the workers concerned. As a consequence, it is not practi-
cable to define once for all the powers of management and
the procedure to be followed in giving effect to such changes.
Hard and fast rules or principles laid down in advance can-
not but fail to meet complex situations that were not to be
foreseen. For this reason, if for no other, it is of the essence
of justice to leave wide room for joint discussion and negotia-
tion between the representatives of both sides. Whenever a
dispute arises in relation to any particular change proposed
by the management, the mere fact of the dispute, whether or
not the grievance be a real one, calls for conference and an
understanding. It is the danger signal indicating that the
workers' interests are menaced or at least in need of safe-
guarding against the administrative initiative of the manage-
ment. And the facts of whether those interests are actually
endangered and how they are to be protected, have to be de-
termined in each particular situation anew. Hence the need
of a continuously functioning joint machinery, like the price
committee, to deal concretely with every case of disputed
authority as it arises.

The encroachment of workers' control upon the sphere of
management takes two general forms. On one side is the
restrictive or negative type of control, which is aimed at limit-
ing the freedom of administrative action of management at
those points where it comes into open conflict with the rights
and interests of workers. On the other side, there is the
positive or constructive tendency in the movement for work-
ers' control. This is marked by the intervention of the work-
ers' representatives in the counsels of management before the
conflict of interests reaches the point of open breach. In
other words, the initiation of a change in the conditions of
work or pay is in this case not effected by executive action
subject to review and reversal. Rather, it is the result of

224 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

joint discussion or collective bargaining and agreement be-
tween the parties or, failing this, of adjudication by the
impartial machinery. The terms and conditions under which
the intended change is to take effect are stipulated before-
hand and are such as to safeguard all the essential interests
involved. Furthermore, they have legal status under the
agreement and are enforcible under its authority.

By way of illustration, the decision by Mr. Williams in
the following case18 throws light upon the conditions under
which even so relatively innocent a device as the substitution
of hour- work for piece-work may be resorted to by executive
action of the management when a change in work is enacted,
and under what other conditions such a change must first be
authorized by the price committee or the Trade Board. In
this case a question arose over the division by the company of
the payment of a button-hole operation, which involved the
paying of part of it on hour-work, and part on piece-work.
The union complained that the more lucrative part of the
operation was put on hour-work, while the less lucrative was
kept on piece-work, thus reducing the average earning power
on the whole operation. It also contended that the company
was not entitled to change a price fixed by the price com-
mittee, by administrative action, but was required to re-
submit it to the price committee if it desired a change. The
company explained that in this case the price committee was
otherwise occupied when the change was sought, and it had
recourse to hour-work as the fairest way to dispose of the
matter while the committee was busy elsewhere. It held,
further, that it had of right the option of substituting hour-
work for piece-work whenever, in its judgment, it seemed
advisable, and, accordingly, it was justified in making the
change in question.

The Board of Arbitration observed that the point in dis-
pute was not specifically covered either in the agreement or
in previous decisions. And in order to avoid future disputes
it gave out the following interpretation of the rights of man-
agement under the agreement :

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 225

" 1 . The right of the company to substitute hour work for
piece work is intended to apply to periods of change before the
price committee has had opportunity to fix a legal price.

" 2. After the price committee has fixed a price it cannot be
changed by executive action of the company, but must be re-
submitted to the price committee or Trade Board, except as
follows :

" 3. In case of a substantial change in the conditions which
calls for a readjustment of the price, the company shall give
notice to the chairman of the Trade Board that it intends to
ask for a readjustment of the price, and desires to introduce
hour-work.

" 4. The chairman of the Trade Board shall proceed
promptly to take suitable action, and shall in his discretion be
authorized to put in hour work or institute a temporary piece
work price if the regular price committee is unable to act with
sufficient expedition.

" 5. After a price has been made by the Committee, it shall
go into effect on the morning of the second day following."

A more drastic use of administrative power by the em-
ployer, where joint or co-operative procedure was indicated
by the agreement is exhibited in the following notable deci-
sion by the Trade Board.19 The union in this case com-
plained that the people were kept waiting in the shop when
there was no work, and the manager refused to grant them
passes; also that hour- work had been withdrawn and the
manager was attempting to compel the people to work at
piece-work rates on operations not in their section.

The company admitted that orders had been issued requir-
ing individuals who are in one-man sections to remain in the
shop, as the operation of the shop depended on their attend-
ance ; but the company claimed that offers had been made to
these one-man sections to combine them and so provide work
sufficient for these individuals. The company objected to
hour-work, asserting that it is only a bonus system, involving
allowances to piece-workers which they do not earn. The
company was seeking to reduce hour- work to a minimum.

The union contended that these orders violated the agree-
ment in two ways : ( 1 ) In respect to the provision regarding
" detention in the shop," which reads:

226 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

" Workers shall not be detained in the shops when there is
insufficient work for them. The company or its agent shall
exercise due foresight in calculating the work available, and as
far as practicable shall call only enough workers into the fac-
tory to do the work in sight. And if a greater number report
for work than there is work for, those in excess of the number
required shall be promptly notified and permitted to leave the
shop. The work on hand shall be divided as equally as may be
between the remaining workers. The company and the deputies
have agreed to cooperate together to abolish all unnecessary
waiting in the shops."

And (2) a change of work was ordered contrary to the rul-
ing of the Board of Arbitration: " Automatic reductions or
reductions by direct or executive action, are to be dis-
couraged, etc."

The question in this case turned on whether the company
was within its rights under the agreement when it sent out
the order to reduce hour- work to a minimum; to grant no
passes to workers in one-man sections ; and to order sections
to be combined. In ruling on the question, Chairman Mul-
lenbach held as follows :

" The order to refuse passes to workers who have no work
and require them either to sit in the shops idle or accept work
on terms fixed solely by the company's officials is contrary to
both provisions cited above. The provision as to ' Detention
in the shop ' clearly intends to reduce waiting in the shop to a
minimum, and this was to be done by cooperation between the
company and the deputies. But in the present instance no
cooperation was attempted. An executive order requiring wait-
ing in the shop without work was sent out. The ruling of the
Board of Arbitration (cited above), states that * It is clearly
the intention of the agreement that no change of price or change
of work equivalent to a change of price should be made without
being submitted to the Price Committee.' There is no question
that there was a * change of work equivalent to a change of
price ' in respect to these one-man sections, and that such a
change should not have been made until the Rate Committee
had taken the matter up.

" Under the circumstances the Trade Board rules that the
status quo prior to the order be restored * * * , and that
the matter of any readjustment be referred to the Rate Commit-
tee for consideration."

THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT 227

The line between the proper spheres of the employer's
executive jurisdiction and of workers' rights and interests is
often a narrow and indefinite one. It is, therefore, all the
more essential that in matters likely to affect these rights and
interests the management should proceed with caution and
restraint. This means, practically speaking, some form of
joint or constitutional procedure. Joint procedure not only
defines the workers' rights and interests in a given situation
in the light of the agreement ; it also protects those interests
against invasion, and consequently prevents a sense of wrong
and resentment such as resulted from direct action by man-
agement in the case reported above. Nor is the reaction of
the workers always limited to rebellious feeling, held in
check, as in this case, by union discipline. Often enough it
finds expression in stoppages, which merely complicate the
difficulty. Such was the result in the following case20 where
an official of the management exceeded his authority and
thereby provoked a stoppage.

The union in this case complained that the management
(examiner) changed the stitch of the Wilson machines and
caused the workers to lose time. The union asked for pay
for lost time and a fine on the management for violation of
the agreement. The company admitted that the change of
stitch was improperly made, but denied that the people had
any valid claim for redress, as they stopped work and tried
to secure redress through direct action. The union also con-
tended that the company violated the agreement in adjusting
the machines and requiring a finer stitch without calling on
the Rate Committee to revise the specification. The com-
pany admitted that the examiner had no right under the
agreement to alter the stitch, nor did he have any authority
from his ranking officers to make the change. It was done
on his own initiative. The Trade Board ordered a week's
lay-off for the examiner as penalty for the unauthorized
alteration of the stitch and as a warning against similar
action by agents of the company.

In this case, it appears, the action of the official in changing
the work of the machine operators was doubly arbitrary. On

228 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

one hand it was taken without the sanction of the general
management of the factory, which should at least have been
consulted. On the other hand, it was taken without the pre-
vious knowledge or consent of the workers' representative,
and as such constituted a violation of the agreement. If the
change had been in itself a legitimate one, as claimed by the
examiner, it could have been effected without friction by
way of the regular procedure of conference and joint
authorization.

CHAPTER XI

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE

IF we look back at the condition of the workers in the
Chicago clothing shops in the year 1910, we find in the
larger establishments that the power of discipline and dis-
charge was lodged in the hands of foremen. As these men
had generally risen from the ranks and felt keenly their
power over the rest of the workers in the shop, it was not
strange that abuses of authority should be frequent and
tyrannical treatment common. Not only were workers laid
off or discharged by the foreman without a chance^ to be
heard in their own defense, but that petty autocrat was
wont to impose fines and deductions, to order overtime work,
to cut piece rates, or even to lock out his workers, with a
free hand. Foremen were usually selected for other quali-
ties than those of personal refinement or respect for workers'
rights. Many of them were typical bullies and of low moral
sensibilities. With women and young girls constituting at
least half of the people under them, some of these foremen
did not scruple to subject the more defenseless workers to
brutal insults and indignities. They were able to do so with
impunity, for at that time the workers had no effective re-
dress against mistreatment at the hands of their " superiors."
It was abuses of this sort that in their cumulative effect pre-
cipitated the great strike of 1910-11, thereby compelling
consideration of the fundamental defects of the autocratic
regime in the clothing industry. One of the few provisions
embodied in the resulting peace pact between the firm of
Hart, Schaffner and Marx and its employes limited the
company's right of discharge from that time forth by the
obligation not to discriminate against members of the union
— even where these had taken an active part in the conduct
of the strike.

That obligation, however, was merely voluntary on the

230 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

part of the company and was predicated upon its good-will
alone. There was no power, as yet, on the side of the union
to compel its observance in practice. As a matter of fact,
the company maintained through its employment department
a system of classification of all its employes, grading them
as A, B and C, according to their previous record in its shop
and re-employing them only in this order of preference.
Thus the firm practiced an indirect, though none the less
effective, discrimination against those of its former employes
who had for whatever reason earned the classification of C.
If, then, a worker was refused re-employment or was re-
employed and subsequently discharged by the firm, he might,
theoretically, appeal his case to the newly-established Board
of Arbitration. But the burden of proof of discrimination
on account of union membership was upon himself, not upon
the employer.

A survey of the growth of union control in this field, as
it is recorded in the decisions of the Trade Board, and the
Board of Arbitration, shows three main lines of progress.
In the first place, extensive inroads have been made upon the
employer's traditional power of discipline and discharge, a
considerable share of this power having come to be lodged in
the impartial machinery. From this transfer of power there
have followed two other developments of importance: (a)
the adaptation of disciplinary measures, both as to kind and
degree, to the objective needs of the situation; that is to say,
the elimination of arbitrary and of drastic penalties against
workers. And (b) the coming of foremen and other repre-
sentatives of management — and incidentally also of the union
in the shop — under the sway of law and discipline as ad-
ministered by the Trade Board.

In the second place, there has been a widening of the circle
of rights for the worker and a growing up of guaranties
protecting him in the exercise of these rights without fear of
discipline or discharge. From being virtually a rightless
" wage-servant " whose tenure of his job was dependent on
the pleasure of the employer and whose liberty of action on
the job was equally precarious, the worker has come to oc-

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 231

cupy something of the status of a citizen in the industry, with
a voice in its management wherever his own interests are in-
volved, and with definitely recognized rights over against
the employer.

The third line of advance toward control has been in the -
direction of increasing participation by the union in the main-
tenance of shop discipline and morale. Once feared and
fought by the employers as the great menace to discipline
in the old autocratic sense, the union has gradually become
one of the most potent factors, if not the mainstay, of law
and order in the shop. It has become an indispensable ally /'
of management in the task of securing the willing co-opera-
tion of the workers in the industry, that has superseded the
enforced co-operation under the old regime of fear and hate.
And along with its enlarging responsibilities for the discip-
line of the shop, the union has acquired corresponding rights
and privileges, that have, in turn, contributed to its growth
both in numbers and in solidarity, and made of it a powerful
force working toward self-government in the industry.

LIMITATION OF THE EMPLOYER'S DISCIPLINARY

POWER

Prior to the growth of organization among the clothing
workers, the employers were unrestricted in their choice of -
means to make their authority prevail in the shop. Nor were
they over-squeamish in their use of this power. Apart, how-
ever, from the free resort to discharge and other penalties on
every occasion, the galling thing about the system was rather
the possibility if not always the fact of petty tyranny and
oppression by foremen and executives generally. Personal
favoritism on one hand and discrimination, amounting even
to persecution, on the other, characterized the relations of
those in power toward the rest.

A favorite whip wielded by the employers over the people
was discharge. Discharge is, in general, the extreme form
of punishment for a worker. It means for him not only a
temporary cutting off from his livelihood, but a brand that

232 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

in many cases closed against him other doors where employ-
ment might be found. The discharge penalty is particularly
severe at times when there is a dearth of work in the trade,
or, what comes to the same thing, a surplus of labor seeking
jobs. It is just at such times, however, that the employer is
under the greatest inducement to apply this penalty on slight
provocation, since it affords him a convenient method of
" weeding out " the insubordinate, inefficient, or otherwise
undesirable individuals in his employ. And if need be, he
experiences no difficulty at such times in filling their places
with more willing workers from the street.

This conservatively outlines the tendencies with reference
to discharge which had free sway in the industry until the
union grew strong enough to counteract them. It accom-
plished this object of control over discharge not, as in New
York, by prohibiting it and thereby laying up against itself
for the future the grievances and resentment of the employer.
The method in Chicago was that of entrusting to the impar-
tial machinery the function of reviewing the disciplinary acts
of the employer, of testing these by the principle of the pref-
erential shop, and allowing it gradually to absorb to itself a
large share of power in the entire matter.

The effect of the union upon the kind and degree of penal-
ties imposed upon workers by their employers makes itself
felt directly through the Trade Board. But the mere knowl-
edge that any act of discipline may be appealed by the worker
affected, through the union to this tribunal, operates as a
check upon the employer's free use of his power. Notwith-
standing this check, however, many instances of discharge
occur which, on being brought to the Trade Board for review,
lead to reinstatement of the worker and the substitution of
other, usually lighter, forms of penalty. In illustration of
this moderating influence exerted by the impartial machinery
upon shop discipline, we may cite the case21 of R, a cutter,
whose discharge had been ordered as a result of several seri-
ous mistakes in his work following repeated complaints on
account of poor work. He had, however, immediately called
the attention of the foreman to one of the mistakes, thus

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 233

frankly acknowledging responsibility for it. In considera-
tion of this fact the chairman of the Trade Board ordered
the cutter's reinstatement, leaving him the loss of his wages
for the two weeks elapsed since his discharge as a penalty to
insure greater care on his part in the future.

There are other conditions that may operate as extenuat-
ing circumstances and protect a worker from outright dis-
charge which might otherwise be warranted by the serious-
ness of his offense. Such are, for example, a previously"
clear record, or severe provocation. In cases of this sort, the
discharge penalty may be set aside by the Trade Board and
reinstatement on probation or a warning accentuated by for-
feiture of a few days' wages, administered in its stead. Of
such a character was the case22 of two trimmers discharged
for starting a fight in the shop. Though they denied that
they actually came to blows, the Trade Board was convinced
" that the affair was little different from what is generally
regarded as a fight. * * * Their conduct was wholly un-
called for; it cannot be permitted in the shop and it is a re-
flection upon the union. This is their first offense of this
sortf however, and the Board will not approve the extreme
penalty of discharge. They are to be reinstated April 15th
without pay for time lost, this to serve as discipline, and are
warned that a second offense will mean discharge."

While the formal right and the initiative in matters of dis-
cipline and discharge remains with the employer, exception
is to be noted in the case of union officials, a subject consid-
ered later in this chapter. The actual power has largely
passed out of his hands and into the keeping of the Trade
Board. It has already been seen that, owing to the free use
made by workers of their right of appeal in discharge cases,
the practical effect of discharge by the employer is merely
that of suspension pending the final determination by the
Trade Board as to what the exact form and measure of dis-
cipline shall be. The tendency observed toward less severe
forms of discipline must be ascribed to the growing power of
discretion vested in the Trade Board. The power thus trans-
ferred registers, in the last analysis, the growing power of

234 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the union — power wrested from the employers and exercised
through this tribunal in the interests of both.

The power of the union in limiting the employer's right
j of discipline manifests itself not only in reducing the degree
of punishment, but also in placing restrictions upon the use
of certain forms of penalty. Thus the imposition of fines
upon workers by employers has been practically prohibited
in the Chicago market. In a case23 where a worker was sus-
pended for damaging a coat and the firm offered to reinstate
her on condition that she pay for the damage, the firm argued
before the Trade Board that the collection of a money fine
would be a reasonable form of discipline. The union, on the
other hand, contended that the imposition of fines was a
chief cause of the strike of 1910 and was specifically pro-
hibited in the agreement then made with Hart, Schaffner
and Marx. In its decision the Trade Board called attention
to the fact that it had " in several instances advised against
the imposition of fines and now officially rules against it
* * *. Experience shows that this form of discipline lends
itself so easily to abuse that it becomes improper. Fre-
quently fines are used as a device to undermine and reduce
wages. Their imposition invariably leads to bad results in
the long run * * *."

In another case24 an apprentice cutter, who had made a
mistake, was offered the alternative of being discharged or
paying the firm the sum of $1.75 for the damage. On hear-
ing the case, the Trade Board disallowed either of the penal-
ties proposed, and stated that " the firm should know that
the system of charging workers for mistakes has been aban-
doned long ago in this market." While directing the worker's
reinstatement, the Board ordered him to lose three days' pay
as discipline, thereby in a manner taking over the power of
imposing fines.

The objection to fines or similar forms of discipline is not
so much to them on their own account as it is to their appli-
cation by the employer. In the hands of the Trade Board,
however, the chance of abuse of so dangerous a device is
slight. Accordingly, we find the same Trade Board that had

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 235

prohibited employers from fining workers, doing the same
thing on its own authority. In a case26 where the cutters and
trimmers of an establishment had stopped work in protest
against the suspension of one of their number, the Trade
Board, after reinstating the suspended worker with pay for
lost time, fined the other workers for violation of the agree-
ment. The union appealed the issue to the Board of Arbi-
tration, contending that " fines are a mistaken method of
discipline," etc. The chairman of this Board dissented from
the union's position that fines should not be used at all. " If
not used too frequently and if used with good judgment they
find a proper place in Trade Board discipline * * *. Fines
are not a method of disciplining workers alone. In this case
the Trade Board imposed an indirect fine upon the firm by
requiring it to pay the suspended worker for all time lost.
The Chairman is of the opinion that the selection of methods
of discipline must be left to the good sense of the Chairman
of the Trade Board."

A safeguard against any possible mis-application of a
novel method of discipline by the Trade Board lies in the
right of appeal to the Board of Arbitration. That this right
is occasionally invoked to some purpose by the union is shown
in the following case:26 A firm petitioned the Trade Board
to penalize its cutters who had stopped work for three hours
and to compensate the company for the resulting loss in pro-
duction. In addition to loss of pay for the period of stop-
page, the Trade Board ordered the cutters to work overtime
for three hours and to be paid at straight time instead of at
overtime rates. The union appealed from this part of the
decision and the chairman of the Board of Arbitration ruled
that " the form of discipline in question is very appropriate
in cases where a stoppage is not provoked and the firm is
without fault," but not otherwise. In the case under review
there was found to be a certain amount of provocation, and
because of this the Board concluded that " a fine would have
been a more suitable penalty than the overtime order ", and
lirected that each cutter should pay a fine equal to one and

236 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

one-half hour's pay, the Trade Board to determine how the
money should be used.

The second general consequence of the accumulation of
power 'by the impartial machinery is its extension of discip-
linary control over the representatives of the union on one
hand and of the management on the other. Under the old
regime of personal government of the shops, the employer
or his foreman — like the king of old — could do no wrong.
There was no law to reach him if he did. With the rise in
the industry of government by law and reason, however, the
officials of the firm in their dealings with the workers come
under the sway of the impartial machinery and must answer
to its authority. In the actual application of discipline to
such officials the Trade Board is, of course, limited by
the nature of the situation. It cannot, for example, impose
immediate discharge on a foreman without consulting the
convenience of the firm in replacing him. Nor can it suspend
a member of the firm for an offense which, when committed
by an employe, would merit such penalty. Nevertheless,
there are at the disposal of the Trade Board forms of dis-
cipline adapted to all cases that arise. Inasmuch as foremen
are the representatives of the employer in the shop, the appli-
cation of discipline to them is usually entrusted to the firm,
although the specific character of the penalty may be laid
down by the Trade Board. Thus, in one case27 the union
requested discipline of a foreman and an assistant foreman,
who were charged with having used abusive and insulting
language toward workers. The assistant foreman's offense
was the more flagrant and he was voluntarily discharged by
the firm directly after the hearing. This the Trade Board
considered sufficient to serve as a warning " that loose re-
marks will not be tolerated. It is expected that the firm
will make this clear to the foreman and see to it that there
is no further cause for complaint."

Where it is shown, however, that an official of the firm has
been guilty of wilfully violating the spirit of the agreement
or disobeying a decision of the impartial machinery, the
Trade Board applies the penalty directly. In one such case28

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 237

a charge of fighting with a worker in the shop was brought
against the superintendent. Because of his position of au-
thority and influence, such action on his part was more seri-
ous than it would have been in the case of an ordinary
worker. The Trade Board expressed the opinion that " only
in a clear case of self-defense to prevent bodily harm would
a foreman or a superintendent be justified in striking a
worker, because discipline in the form of discharge is im-
mediately at hand* * *. The superintendent is to pay a
fine of fifty dollars," to be used by the Trade Board as a
relief fund.

Trade Board discipline reaches still higher up. The union
on one occasion preferred charges against a member of the
firm for using insulting and improper language to a shop
chairman. The Trade Board in its decision set forth that
" the representatives of either management or workers are
entitled to courtesy and respect. The language used by
Mr. W. was neither courteous nor respectful * * *.
Apart from the effect upon the workers of this exhibition of
temper, the Board feels that it is a serious charge against
management and may well be a matter of market concern.
The charge stands as a matter of official record. The Board
adds to the record that the behavior of Mr. W. merits se-
verest condemnation. The Board reprimands him openly
and gives notice that the language used and the attitude
taken will not be tolerated."

As appears from the cases cited, the Trade Board may, / /
if necessary, call upon the individual firm for assistance in
carrying out discipline against a foreman, or superintendent,
and possibly upon the association of firms in the market for
action against one of its membes. In similar manner, the
Board may deal with cases of delinquency of minor union
officials by entrusting the application of disciplinary meas-
ures to the union as represented in the Joint Board for the
market. As this phase of the matter will be considered
under the head of union discipline in the latter part of this
chapter, attention is here directed only to the taking over
by the Trade Board of disciplinary jurisdiction, as restrict-

238 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

ing the employer's right of discharge and discipline, in all
cases involving shop chairmen and other union officials em-
ployed as workers in the shop.

In order to insure necessary freedom of action and pro-
tection against discrimination for the representatives of the
workers who are themselves workers in the shop, the Hart,
Schaffner and Marx agreement has, since 1913, contained
the following provision: "Complaints against members of
* the Trade Board as workmen are to be made by the foremen
to the Trade Board. Any action of any employe as a mem-
ber of the Trade Board shall not be considered inimical to
his employment with the corporation." This same immunity
has been extended since then to shop chairmen and other
^ union officials as well.

The dual status of the shop chairman as both a worker
responsible to the foreman and a representative of the
workers responsible to the union and indirectly to the im-
partial machinery makes it imperative that he should be
doubly protected against arbitrary discharge at the hands of
the employer. For such discharge, for whatever ostensible
reason, may easily strike at the rights of the workers whom
he represents and is always open to the inference that it was
directed against his activities on their behalf.

In the days before the union came to power in the market
its growth and very existence were threatened by the con-
stant elimination through discharge of those workers who
were known to be active in the organization. To make dis-
crimination of this character impossible, shop chairmen are
subject to a special procedure in the event of discipline.

The state of the law on the subject is well summed up in
the case of a shop chairman30 who had been suspended by the
firm for distributing during working hours an announcement
of a lecture to be given under the union's auspices. The
firm defended the suspension on the ground that the shop
chairman's action was in violation of a company rule (re-
quiring special permission from the management for circu-
lating such handbills in the shop). After hearing the case
the Trade Board directed that " the shop chairman should

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 239

be reinstated the next morning * * * and that he be
paid for the time lost on the ground that, whatever may be
said as to the propriety of the rule, he should not have been
suspended at all. More than once the Trade Board has urged
that shop chairmen should not be suspended or discharged
unless an emergency developed, but that they should be
brought before the Board for discipline * * *."

Similar special treatment is now accorded to assistant shop
chairmen as well. This principle was established for the
entire market by a ruling31 of the Board of Arbitration, in
which the chairman of the Board declared that an " assist-
ant shop chairman should not have been suspended but
should have been proceeded against like a shop chairman
* * *. The Board sees no reason why there should
be a distinction between chairmen and assistant chairmen
in the matter of discipline."

Other union officials, who are at the same time regular
workers in the shop, come under! the same rule, and for a like
reason. Thus may be mentioned the case32 of the treasurer
of a local union, who was brought up by the firm before the
Trade Board for discipline on account of " habitual tardi-
ness and absences." Some of this irregularity was found to
be due to proper union business. The Trade Board, on be-
ing assured of improvement in this man's attendance, agreed
to suspend action.

In the discipline of shop chairmen, the Trade Board
an alternative to discharge in the lesser penalty of remov-
ing him from office. This form of discipline, however, in-
volves the co-operation of the union to give it effect. In
one instance33 a shop chairman was charged by the firm with
having ordered a stoppage of workers. The Trade Board
found that he had acted under strong provocation, yet char-
acterized the case as one of " unwarranted display of author-
ity," and decided that it would be " sufficient discipline if
the shop chairman is relieved of his duties as representative
of the workers for a period of thirty days. A temporary
chairman is to be elected and will be recognized * * *."

On the other hand, shop chairmen do not merely by virtue

240 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

of their official position, enjoy immunity from discharge at
the hands of the Trade Board. If anything, more is ex-
pected of them as regards their behavior in the shop and
their upholding of the letter and spirit of the agreement than
is demanded of the rank and file of workers, who bear no
such responsibility of leadership. In the light of this prin-
ciple is to be understood the action of the Trade Board84 in
ordering the removal and discharge of a certain shop chair-
man who was found guilty of abusive language and repeated
fighting with fellow workers. As a worker he is in the same
position as other workers, bearing similar rights and duties,
and, as set forth in another decision:35 "If the shop chair-
man is unable to measure up as a worker he is not only unfit
to serve as shop chairman but cannot expect to hold his
place as a worker."

Notwithstanding its power of discipline over shop chair-
men, the Trade Board is not expected to take the initiative
even in these cases. It must wait for specific complaints
on the employer's part against such union officials before
it can proceed even to investigate their conduct. The pur-
pose of this restriction of the Board's function is, obviously,
to keep it a strictly judicial body and to protect it against
any imputation of taking sides, which might easily impair
its authority and prestige. On one occasion36 a firm peti-
tioned the Board of Arbitration for a change in this system,
under which the firm had " no right to initiate discipline
(of union officials) and the chairman (of the Trade Board)
refused to take any responsibility for necessary discipline."
In denying the petition, the Board of Arbitration stated the
issue thus: ' The management feels that the chairman of
the Trade Board should do something more than hear cases
filed with him, that in some way or other he should be active
in the administration." And the Board's reply was that
" the chairman of the Trade Board cannot well take the
initiative in this or other matters, except perhaps by sug-
gesting needed conferences to the parties in interest. He
must not only be impartial but must also: at all times be care-
ful to avoid incorrect expressions that he is not impartial."

Trade Board of the Wholesale Clothiers, Wholesale Tailors, Cut Trim
and Make Association, etc., B. M. Squires, Impartial Chairman

Cutters and Trimmers Commission, Hart, Schaffner and Marx,
James Mullenbach, Chairman

THfc MSB ART
Of1 THE

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 241

EXTENSION OF WORKERS' RIGHTS

Under the old regime of exclusive employer's control, the
worker on entering the factory left behind whatever liberty
he might enjoy as a member of the community at large. He
submitted himself not only to such rules as a stereotyped
factory discipline entailed, and to such restrictions on his
comings and goings, his associations and activities even while
off duty, as those who controlled his job might impose upon
him, but also to the whims of the foreman and of others in
authority over him. He submitted simply because he had no
rights that had become recognized or that could be enforced
against the employer — short of a strike by the entire shop.
Even elementary personal needs could be satisfied during
working hours only with the foreman's consent. Whatever
shop regulations might be promulgated by the employer be-
came law for the workers in that shop.

With the participation of the union in shop government,
these rules and prohibitions came under scrutiny and had
to square with the agreement jointly entered into, or go.
Employers could no longer discipline workers for refusing
to obey orders that ran counter to the workers' rights as
guaranteed or implied in the agreement. Among their rights
so reserved and guaranteed are those personal liberties within
the shop that do not conflict with efficiency and good disci-
pline, and that freedom of movement and choice outside the
shop which is compatible with the law. The principle is
illustrated in a Trade Board case37 turning on the discharge
of a worker for leaving the shop without a pass. The worker,
desiring to see a doctor, had been refused a pass by the fore-
man who required him to submit first to a physical examina-
tion by the company's medical staff. The Trade Board
held that " compulsory attendance on company's physician
would be a limitation of personal liberty not stipulated in
the agreement nor established by general practice," and
directed that the worker be reinstated with pay for time lost.

In another case,38 the firm had issued instructions to all
its employes that any of them found gambling at a certain

242 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

nearby cigar store would be discharged. The threat was soon
afterward put into effect against one worker who was taken
in a police raid on the place but who claimed he had taken
no part in any gambling, and the charge against him was
dismissed in court. The Trade Board directed his reinstate-
ment with pay for time lost. ' The discharge was wholly
unwarranted. * * * The firm can scarcely expect to say
where its employes are to buy cigars or assume that anyone
found buying cigars at this place is perforce a gambler.
* * * The Board expects the firm to use judgment in
exercising its right of discipline."

The safeguarding of the worker's right to the job and
the corresponding limitations upon the employer's right to
" turn over " his labor force, i.e., to discharge workers, apply
only after the two weeks' trial period is past. During the
first fortnight of his employment, the worker is on probation.
He must earn the right to permanent employment by
proving his fitness for the particular position which he is ex-
pected to fill. If he meets the requirements of the job he
is accepted and has what is known as a " mortgage " or
presumptive claim upon it. If he fails for any reason what-
soever to satisfy the employer, the latter is free, before the
expiration of the two weeks, to dismiss him and call upon
the union for another worker to fill the vacancy.

The probationary period through which every new worker
must pass before his employment is secure, is of great im-
portance to the employer from the standpoint of proper
selection of his help. This is especially the case where the
organization of work in his shop is in any degree different
from that prevailing in other establishments in the market,
and since the order in which the union supplies him with can-
didates for the position does not insure detailed fitness for it.
But, while viewing the matter through the employer's eyes,
the union concedes to him broad discharge powers at that stage
of the worker's employment, it has even here succeeded in
erecting certain safeguards against the abuse of such power.
It has insisted that the power of dismissal shall not be used
as an instrument of discrimination or of intimidation, or in

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 243

any way for undermining the union. And to make effective
its insistence, the union has in Chicago won the right for a
member discharged during the probationary period to appeal
to the Trade Board in any case where evidence points to
discrimination. The burden of proof in such cases rests, of
course, on the union. In the words of one decision, " The
probationary period is for the purpose of determining the
fitness of the new worker and the firm is given considerable
latitude during this period. The burden of proof in case *-"
of discharge rests upon the union and discrimination must
be clearly shown."

In the event that a worker is finally engaged, the terms i
and conditions of his employment thereafter are understood
to be those which obtained during his probationary period,
and cannot be changed except by agreement with the union.
Nor can the employer enforce under threat or by the use of
discipline, any private arrangement entered into with the new
worker in consideration of his being retained. The proba-
tionary terms of employment, by virtue of the implied con-
tract, take on the character of rights and duties under the
collective agreement and are enforcible through the impartial
machinery.

The union in one case39 complained of the discharge of a
certain trimmer. The firm claimed that the man's produc-
tion had failed to reach a standard promised by him during
his probationary period — a standard, however, in excess of
that actually set by him during that period. In deciding the
case against the firm, the Trade Board stated: ' The only
standard of production that the Trade Board can recognize
under circumstances such as these is the standard set by the
worker during his probationary period. If the record of this
is clear and beyond question and the firm chooses to retain
the worker beyond the probationary period without definite
understanding with the union as to the conditions under
which the worker is retained, the firm may be said to have
accepted the standards set during the period." In case the
two weeks' period was too short a time for observing the
worker's performance under the most favorable conditions,

244 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the firm had the right to request the union for an extension
of that worker's trial period.

Once a worker has earned his status as a regular employe,
he cannot be dislodged as long as his work and general con-
duct do not fall below the reasonable standards of the shop.
It happens, sometimes, that an employer desires to rid him-
self of a particular worker for some ulterior purpose, but
lacking sufficient cause to justify discharge before the Trade
Board, welcomes an occasion for compromising in order to
discharge him. If the discriminatory intent behind such dis-
charge can be shown, the worker will be fully protected. In
one case of this sort40 the firm allowed a cutter to make a
wasteful cut before calling his attention to it and then sus-
pended him on the strength of it. The union contended
before the Trade Board that the man was no more careless
than other cutters and that the complaint in question was
handled in such a way as to give reason to believe that the
worker was discriminated against. The union charged, more-
over, " that the firm is using this means to secure closer lays
and hopes to intimidate other cutters by discharging this
man." In ordering the reinstatement of the worker with pay
for time lost, the Trade Board observed that " the firm ap-
peared to be more interested in getting something on the
worker than in avoiding the waste of material or correcting
habits of carelessness in the worker. Even if the worker was
clearly at fault and his carelessness was admitted, the Board
would not be disposed to hold the charge against him in the
face of the method used to convict him."

HOLDING FOR INVESTIGATION

Next in importance to the general presumptive right of
the worker to the job itself, one of the most important rights
he has acquired through the power of the union is that of
holding for joint investigation any garment on which the
workmanship is in dispute between him and the manage-
ment. Before the recognition of this right it was possible
for an employer to charge a worker with unsatisfactory

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 245

workmanship on a given garment and to discipline him
accordingly, while in reality the workmanship was up to
the standard or, if inferior, was chargeable to some other
worker. To prevent injustice of this sort and to enable the
union to present evidence before the Trade Board that would
otherwise not be available, the right of the worker to require
disputed garments to be held for joint examination by the
union deputy and a higher official of the management has
become established.

Cases still occur where a worker is suspended for refus-
ing to bushel a garment returned to him by the examiner.
If he as a worker considers the workmanship to be adequate
he has the right of bringing it to the attention of the shop
chairman. If this official then agrees that the work is right
and takes charge of the matter, making formal request, the
garment must be held pending investigation. The shop
chairman, of course, " is presumed only to take up cases
brought to his attention with a request, not to take the initi-
ative in holding for investigation."41

The law of procedure governing all cases of holding gar-
ments for investigation has been gradually worked out in the
course of many decisions primarily under the Hart, Schaff-
ner and Marx agreement. One of the earliest cases42 decided
by the Trade Board turned upon this question as to whether
the worker might require his work to be held for examination
where complaint had been made of workmanship. On this
point the Board ruled that " where it is convenient the entire
lot should be held for investigation when the worker de-
mands it. Where it is not convenient to hold the entire lot,
then a selection of the garments is to be made, as follows:
the worker or his representatives may select a sample of
the work that they think is passable; the representative of
the firm may select a sample that he regards as evidence of
the worst workmanship. These two samples will be pre-
sented to the Board if it becomes necessary, as evidence of
the workmanship. This ruling does not apply to rush lots."

It appears from the above decision that the responsibility
in the matter of having disputed work held for investigation,

246 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

and even in the matter of selecting the only sample to be
held, virtually rested with the worker himself. The union
had not yet gained sufficient power or prestige to command
a distinct function and corresponding rights in the situa-
tion. Consequently, it is not greatly surprising to find that
in practice the worker's right to have even one garment held
under these conditions was not securely established for sev-
eral years and did not effectually protect him against dis-
charge for exercising that right. This observation is borne
out by the fact that, in 1917, a test case43 was made by the
company of a decision by the Trade Board reinstating with
back pay an off-presser who had been discharged for asking
that a coat be held for investigation. The company appealed
the case on the ground that the ruling of the Trade Board
" gave the worker an immunity bath and took the authority
from the foreman to discipline for bad work or to have him
complete the work." On October 11, 1917, the chairman
of the Board of Arbitration laid down the following ruling
in this case, known as No. 370:

" The chairman is asked to review this case with special
reference to defining the conditions to be observed when
a garment is to be held for investigation. In this case an
imperfectly pressed garment was asked to be held for
investigation, and while the company consented to hold the
garment, it suspended the presser pending inquiry. The Trade
Board found the garment imperfect and ordered the presser to
fix it, but at the same time reinstated him in his position with
back pay. From this decision, the company appeals, and asks
that the holding for investigation be more clearly defined.

" The principle upon which the right for investigation de-
pends is the right of the worker to be protected against the
exaction of an excessive amount of work, beyond the amount
agreed upon in the specifications. If the worker believes more
effort is required of him by examiner or foreman than is called
for by the specifications, he may appeal to the proper authority
for a judgment. Unless the request is accompanied by insub-
ordination or other offense, the mere request to hold for investi-
gation shall not of itself be a subject of penalty pending the
inquiry ; neither shall it be used as a shield to protect the worker
from discipline if on other grounds he is deserving of it.

" Inasmuch as the challenge of the judgment of the examiner

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 247

or foreman by the worker involves some possible complications,
it is well that such an act should be attended by some formal
steps, and the following are directed :

1. "If the worker wishes to have work held for investiga-
tion in any department he shall first call over the shop chairman
who shall examine the work. If he approves the request of the
worker he shall make formal demand on the foreman or superin-
tendent to hold work for investigation.

2. " He shall limit himself to one garment, unless it is clear
that it is not enough for a representation; then he shall hold
the least number consistent with needs of a fair investigation.
In no case shall a garment from a rush lot be held.

3. " The chairman shall notify his deputy as promptly as
possible and he shall visit the shop and pass on the garment
before the close of the next business day. If prevented from
getting there by reasonable cause, he shall report such fact to
the deputy of the company and shall have until the end of the
following day to make the investigation.

4. " Unless the worker shall have had the endorsement of his
deputy by the end of the third day from the making of the
demand, he shall proceed to fix the garment; or as soon as the
deputy's endorsement has been denied.

5. " If the deputy shall endorse the position of the worker,
the company may then take the case to the Trade Board, who
shall give the case a hearing as promptly as practicable. Fail-
ure to appeal by the company, the worker shall no longer be
held responsible.

" The Trade Board may consider at its hearing all the issues
and complaints that may be involved in a case of * hold for in-
vestigation,' and in its decision may include all collateral ques-
tions."

By this decision, Mr. Williams not only standardized the
procedure to be followed in the type of case referred to. He
placed further limitations upon the company's administrative,
and disciplinary powers by vesting in the union officials"
discretion in all matters relating to holding of garments for
investigation. Union officials were now charged with the -
responsibility, first, of passing upon the validity of the
worker's request to have the garments held, and upon the
number to he thus held; and secondly, of passing upon the
merits of the disputed work itself hefore the employer could
appeal to the Trade Board. The effect of this procedure was

248 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

to establish an expert joint commission intermediate between
the worker directly concerned and the general adjustment
board.

Part of the limitation imposed upon the powers of man-
agement by the decision consisted, in the extension of the
function of the shop chairman in these cases. The decision
placed upon the shop chairman, at least by implication, the
responsibility of selecting the number of garments he be-
lieves necessary for an adequate representation of the dis-
puted work. It was but natural that conflict should arise
sooner or later over the use made of this power by shop chair-
men in critical cases. Accordingly, in February, 1919, that
issue came up for adjudication44 before the Board of Arbi-
tration for Hart, Schaffner and Marx, as Case No. 690.
Chairman Tufts took occasion to reaffirm the transfer of
power to the shop chairman and to define the procedure in-
tended to safeguard it against abuse, in the following im-
portant ruling:

" The Board of Arbitration believes that the intention of
the ruling in Case No. 370 was to insure a fair investigation.
Ideally this would involve an impartial witness during the whole
procedure. Neither the superintendent nor the shop chairman
is completely impartial. But the Board believes that it is
desirable to make it very clear to the worker that his rights are
being protected, even if need be at the expense of inclining the
balance somewhat in his direction and giving him the benefit of
the doubt. It holds, therefore, that the shop chairman must
take the responsibility of deciding whether more than one is
needed for representation. As a check upon abuse of this
responsibility, it suggests that if any superintendent has reason
to believe that a shop chairman is either incompetent to judge
whether several garments are needed for the investigation, or is
wilfully aiding in holding work beyond what is necessary, he
may file complaint against such chairman with the Trade Board.
If the Trade Board finds the complaint justified it may censure
the chairman. In such case the records of the work held for
investigation by the chairman for a period of time may properly
be considered."

This decision, of which the foregoing excerpt is the essen-
tial part, has furnished the precedent for a series of later

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 249

Trade Board rulings. A case directly in point45 is that of a
cleaner, who was discharged for refusing to clean a coat of
which the management complained. The shop chairlady
wished to have the coat held for investigation. The superin-
tendent refused on the ground that one coat was already be-
ing held for investigation by this girl. The chairlady
claimed she could hold this coat also; the superintendent
stated that his orders were to permit only one coat to
be held. As the girl refused to clean the coat under instruc-
tions from the shop chairlady, the girl was suspended and
discharged. In the light of the above quoted ruling by the
chairman of the Board of Arbitration, the Trade Board
found that the superintendent was required to hold the coat
if the shop chairlady requested it to be held, and that the
suspension of the girl was not warranted. The Trade
Board decided, therefore, that the girl should be reinstated
with back pay.

The right of the shop chairman to require a garment to be L.
held for investigation whenever in his judgment it is neces-
sary, even where, upon review by the Trade Board, his
judgment proves to be mistaken, has been confirmed by the
Board of Arbitration. This interpretation of the shop* chair-
man's responsibility was made in a case46 in which F, a
worker in a trouser shop, " insisted that the garment be held
for investigation even though other garments were being
held at that time involving exactly the same principle. The
Trade Board held in this case that " even though other gar-
ments were held by others presenting the same defect
charged against F, it seems clear that he had a right to re-
quest that his own garments be held for investigation." The
Board of Arbitration, to whom the company appealed, dis-
sented from the ruling of the Trade Board as to the merits
of the case only, and gave the following interpretation of
the law :

" In the decision of the Board of Arbitration in case No. 690,
it was the intention to provide for two principles : ( 1 ) That
the shop chairman should have the responsibility for deciding
how many garments should be regarded as necessary evidence.

250 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

This was intended to be set off against making either the super-
intendent on the one hand or the worker himself on the other.
the judge; (2) That in case the company believes that the shop
chairman is either incompetent in his judgment as to how many
garments should be held or is purposely holding garments not
needed as evidence, it may file a notice with the Trade Board of
the case and either at that time or later when additional in-
stances of this same sort occur, may ask the Trade Board for
such action as the case demands.

" The Board of Arbitration holds that these two principles
may be properly applied to the present case, although this
involves the somewhat different angle that several workers are
involved and that the company considers that one garment is
sufficient evidence, and that therefore it is not necessary that
each man should have his own garments held.

" It seems to the Board that on this principle it would not
necessarily be the case that a garment from each of several
workers should be held for investigation. Therefore, it can-
not be said that each man has a right to have his garment held
for investigation irrespective of the fact that it is of the same
character as other garments. The important and controlling
point is not whose garment it is but whether there is a real and
essential difference in the garment. If, therefore, n worker
claims to have his garment held when there is already another
garment being held for investigation, he cannot rest his claim
simply on the fact that it is his garment. He must show that
it involves some different point or kind of workmanship.

" But the shop chairman is to be the judge as to any claim so
made. He must take the responsibility of saying whether one
or two or three or more garments are needed, whether they come
from one workman or from different workmen. This protects
the workman because the shop chairman is his own representa-
tive. The shop chairman, in making his decision, is to be
guided by the principles stated in the preceding paragraph.
That is, he will not hold additional garments simply because
they come from different workmen unless there is such a differ-
ence as makes it important for a fair decision that they should
be retained as evidence.

" Finally, the company has a check upon the efficiency and
sincerity of the shop chairman in the method of record and
hearing before the Trade Board.

" It is the belief of the Board that if this method is followed
it will be possible after a sufficient interval to find out whether
both sides are adequately protected. It is desirable, therefore,
that a record should be kept so that at some later time it may

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 251

be possible to review the situation and ascertain whether some
different adjustment is needed * * * "

The effect of the foregoing decision was to set up along-
side of the guaranteed right of the shop chairman in the /
situation, his accountability to the impartial machinery for
the discriminating use of this right. It is a right conditioned
in its exercise, like all restrictions upon the freedom of man-
agement, by the necessity of protecting substantial interests
of the workers. In other words, the shop chairman's deci-,^
sions in the matter of holding for investigation must be
reasonable rather than arbitrary. It was to establish this
principle of reasonableness that the company appealed from
a certain Trade Board decision,47 which had declared that
' The right to hold for investigation cannot be withheld from
the union or its official because the company's manager thinks
the demand is unreasonable or unnecessary in any case
* * *." The chairman of the Board of Arbitration agreed
with this statement of the Trade Board. He added, however,
the following qualification: "It is expected that a reason
shall be given when a request is made that a garment be held
and that the shop chairman shall be held responsible for the
proper use of the right accorded * * *."

If the management still thinks the shop chairman is mak- ^
ing an unnecessary demand for holding a garment, or that
his reason for holding it is not an adequate one, it may com-
plain to the Trade Board. An illustration of this procedure
is found in the case48 of W, a shop chairman, whom the com-
pany charged before the Trade Board with having held an
excessive and needless number of coats for investigation. On
hearing the evidence, the Trade Board found no sufficient
reason for special discipline except to warn W to be more
careful in exercising the right to hold garments. ' That
right carries a very definite responsibility for its careful
exercise and shop chairmen should hold the least number of
garments necessary to illustrate and support their complaint.
The holding of garments is an interference with manage-
ment and is only allowed because the interests of the workers
need safeguarding, but the interference with the flow of work

252 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

should be kept at its lowest terms. In general, this has been
the case in the observation of the Trade Board, but the point
needs constant watching and restraint by the shop chairman."

The obligation resting upon the shop chairman to observe
moderation in the use of his right to have garments held for
investigation extends also to the worker directly. In the
language of a recent Trade Board decision49 : ' The right of
a worker to ask that a garment be held for investigation is
admitted, but judgment is to be exercised and the worker is
expected to be willing to recognize and admit obvious mis-
takes; otherwise, every mistake would have to be made a
matter of joint investigation." The worker's obligation to
fix work returned to him that he himself knows to be poor, is
not set aside by his right of refusal in other cases.

Even when, in the worker's judgment, the work should be
held for investigation and the shop chairman makes a selec-
tion of garments as a representation of those in dispute, the
worker is not released from the obligation of fixing the other
garments in dispute that are not thus held. This principle
was laid down in a decision by Chairman Tufts,44 already
quoted in part. He ruled that " The worker shall fix all
other coats and may not ask for a further holding for in-
vestigation until the case is decided." And in a later deci-
sion50 he elucidated this point as follows: ' The clause (just
quoted) shall be understood to mean ' the worker shall fix all
other coats than those which the shop chairman decides to be
necessary for a fair investigation '."

This obligation on the worker and the reasonable limits
within which the management may be justified in enforcing
it, are illustrated in a recent Trade Board case already
cited.49 A worker was suspended for refusing to fix work
other than that held for investigation. The chairman of the
Trade Board, citing the Tufts decision as applicable, de-
clared it "to mean nothing less than that the worker is to fix
the coats in this case. His refusal to do so was sufficient
ground for discipline. At the same time the chairman of the
Trade Board would state it as his opinion that the main con-
cern in the case of disputes of this nature should be to

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 253

determine without delay whether the firm or the worker is at
fault and not to insist on having the work done a certain way
irrespective of its urgency. If the work can be laid aside
without loss until an investigation can be made or the case
can be heard by the Trade Board, this should be done rather
than insist on putting the work through. If the work, other
than that held for investigation, can not be delayed, the firm
is quite within its right in insisting that it be done. Rush
work, of course, cannot be held for investigation." The
Trade Board directed the reinstatement of the worker.

On the other hand, the worker may not be required, pend-
ing a decision by the committee or by the Trade Board on
the work held for investigation, to do better work than that
in dispute. Otherwise, the management would be practically
making itself the judge of the dispute. In one instance51 a
worker was suspended for refusing to do his work better than
a sample already laid aside for investigation. The Trade
Board directed his reinstatement with pay for time lost. The
basis for this decision was stated as follows: " Investiga-
tion is for the purpose of establishing what is correct work.
To make a demand that the work be done better than that
held for investigation as a condition of being permitted to
work is improper, for the question of what is correct work
has then passed from the foreman and man to others for deci-
sion on its merits. Pending a decision, the firm is not to
demand better work than that being passed on. On the other
hand, the man must correct all poor work done (that less
good than that held for investigation) and may be disciplined
for refusal to make such correction or for persisting in doing
poor work."

From the beginning, as has been shown, the right to hold
for investigation has not been conceded as applying to gar-
ments from a " rush " lot. The reason for this exception
from the point of view of management is obvious. In one
case52 where a worker was suspended for refusal to do certain
work as ordered and for asking it to be held for investigation,
the Trade Board upheld the action of the firm. It ruled
that " the lot in question was a rush order. The worker had

254 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

no right to demand that the garments be held for investiga-
tion or to refuse to do the work as directed." In view of
this and previous complaints the Board declined to reinstate
him.

Since the right to hold for joint investigation belongs also
\j to the employer, the procedure must be such as to protect the
worker against the possibility of its misuse. Thus, in one
case,53 a garment was presented by the firm for joint in-
vestigation without any notice of such intention having been
given either to the worker or to the shop chairman at the time
the garment was held. When it was presented the worker
accused the foreman of having tampered with it for the pur-
pose of " framing " him. The Trade Board in its decision
approved the contention of the union that " when a worker is
accused of poor work and this is to be made the basis of a
specific complaint and formal investigation, the defects
should be brought to the attention of the worker and the shop
chairman and definite arrangements made for a joint in-
vestigation. There should be no occasion to question that
the work is in exactly the same condition as the operator
left it."

Beyond the well-defined right to be represented by his
shop chairman whenever disputed work is to be held for in-
vestigation, the worker has gained the more general right of
calling upon the shop chairman for advice and help in what-
ever matter he may feel the need of it. This right of con-
sultation has been clearly established by a decision of the
Board of Arbitration54 in a case brought to it on appeal.
The appeal was taken by the firm ft from the principle enun-
ciated by the Trade Board that the employes have a right
to do anything which is not strictly forbidden in the agree-
ment." The union contended that no such right was claimed,
nor did the chairman find such a principle announced by the
Trade Board. It simply affirmed the right of the worker to
call upon his shop chairman, which right, under the agree-
ment, the Trade Board held, could not be denied by a rule
requiring him to obtain permission from the foreman. And
the chairman of the Board of Arbitration ruled as follows:

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 255

" The right of the employe to have free and unimpeded
access to his shop chairman is implied on pages 6 and 7 of
the agreement (1916), which would not otherwise be work-
able; although it is provided that the foreman shall be in-
formed of, the purpose of the employe's movements if he so
desires. Like any other right it is susceptible to misuse, and
if any worker is found abusing this right by using it to kill
time, or for any improper purpose, he is subject to such dis-
cipline as may be imposed by the Trade Board."

The right of the worker to be accompanied in person by
the shop chairman when complaints of any sort are to be
taken up with him by officials of management is not so clear.
Nevertheless, a trend in this direction is apparent. The
present status of the right is shown in a more recent Trade
Board case55 of a worker discharged for refusing to answer
the labor manager's questions unless the shop chairman were
allowed to be present. The union upheld the worker in this
position, but the Trade Board refrained from laying down
any general rule. It found that " some complaints are of
such a nature that the shop chairman should be present when
they are taken up with the worker. However, the firm can
scarcely be denied the right to interview the workers in-
dividually." The issue presented in this case is likely to
come up again in other forms as workers or union feel the
need of protection against possible abuse of the employer's
right of individual interview.

PARTICIPATION BY THE UNION IN SHOP DISCIPLINE

Up to this point, in discussing the growth of union control
over shop discipline, the emphasis has been chiefly upon the
defensive phase of the situation. The union has been shown y
operating in the capacity of defender of the individual worker
against arbitrary or oppressive treatment at the hands of the
employer. It has appeared as demanding, both directly and
through the authority of the impartial machinery, the restric-
tion of the employer's freedom of action in discharge and
discipline in particular cases. It has labored successfully in

256 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the direction of strengthening the impartial machinery and
enhancing its authority over matters of discipline at the ex-
pense of the employers. And finally, it has enforced regard
for certain rights of the worker for which it has from time
to time secured recognition and verbal embodiment in the
agreement and the decisions. Every step on this road has
redounded to the greater security of the individual worker
in his job and in the enjoyment of those rights and conditions
that go with the job in a union shop.

But there is another aspect to the picture. That is the
v \ collective aspect. The union, as the organization of all the
workers in the industry, has certain larger and more perma-
nent interests to serve alongside of the protection of in-
dividual workers against the untoward consequences of their
daily actions in the shop. These larger interests are (1)
those of building up a powerful organization that can act
promptly and effectively in the interest of all the members
when called upon ; and ( 2 ) of an efficient, stable industry as
the solid foundation for the structure of the union itself.
With these two main aims in view, the union pursues its
policy of collective bargaining and agreement-making /as
the one best calculated to promote peaceful development of
both union and industry.

Now, the agreement is necessarily a two-sided affair. It is
entered into for the mutual benefit of both parties. Each
gives as well as receives, its relative strength at the time de-
termining how favorable or unfavorable the bargain. The
agreement guarantees rights and privileges to each, and the
rights of one are the obligations of the other. Thus, the
rights of the workers relate to such matters as wages and
working conditions, security in employment and opportunity
for redress of grievances against the employer. In conced-
ing the workers' rights in all these respects, the employer,
through the agreement, acknowledges his own obligation to
meet the requirements and restrictions they impose upon him.
He accepts definite obligations toward the workers in his
employ. Similarly, the union, as spokesman for the workers,
accepts certain obligations toward the employer — obligations

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 257

corresponding to the recognized rights of the employer. The
rights of the employer are those of management. They bear
chiefly on the control of production and the operation of the
factory. They are not absolute rights, but are to be exer-
cised with reasonable restraint, and with due regard to the
rights of the workers affected. As such the union acknowl-
edges the employer's rights and thereby accepts the responsi-
bility for upholding them, even against its own individual
members, if necessary. Concretely, the union undertakes to
see to it that, so far, at least, as the matter rests with the
workers, there shall be no unnecessary interruption or inter-
ference with production and no unwarranted disorder in the
shop. The authority of the management over the workers
is to be upheld so long and so far as it is exercised in accord-
ance with the agreement, or the custom of the market. There
are positive reasons of policy why the union can afford to
give this co-operation to the employers, but apart from these
it can be easily seen that the workers themselves have not
least to gain from good order and efficient management in
the shop. Participation in maintaining shop discipline in
this sense becomes, in time, a genuine concern of the organ-
ization.

This is not to say, of course, that the union is under obliga-
tion to take the initiative in shop discipline. That initiative
still rests with the employer, who is more immediately con-
cerned and benefited by its exercise. But the union's func-
tion in this connection is that of backing up the employer and
the impartial machinery in the enforcement of the employer's
rights under the agreement, whenever its violation at the
hands of the workers is in question. The entire machinery
of the union both in the shop and in the Joint Board office,
which at times operates in behalf of the rights of the workers
under the agreement, is called into play at other times to
secure performance of their duties under the agreement. As
a result of this " responsible " character of the organization it
is in a position to demand and gradually to obtain a recog-
nized place and share in the government of the shop.

Practically considered, this means that the employer be-

258 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

comes increasingly dependent for production and the smooth
running of his establishment upon the good will and co-
operation of the union. He may, of course, exercise his right
of discipline in dealing with individual workers who offend
against his legitimate authority. But he cannot in this way
deal with an entire section or shop that has become rebellious
or disorderly. Disciplinary measures applied wholesale
would only aggravate his problem. Workers are no longer
to be cowed into obedience. They must yield it willingly,
if at all. An antagonistic or suspicious frame of mind is to
be dispelled not by force but by conciliatory and educational
means, for force provokes counter-force. Any innovation
in methods of work or pay that is imposed by order of the
management is apt to call out opposition from the workers
affected. To discharge them for insubordination may merely
result in a general stoppage of work and resentment all
round. The employer is not properly concerned with the
abstract right of having his orders obeyed. He is greatly
concerned with getting out production, and this depends
on the willing co-operation of the workers. These must, ac-
cordingly, be induced to give their consent to the change pro-
posed; they must feel assured that their rights and stand-
ards will not be jeopardized by it, even indirectly. Such
assurance can ultimately come to them only from their own
organization, as the sole power that can be depended upon
to protect their interests against the employer under all cir-
cumstances.

As an illustration of the way in which the union functions
as a force for maintaining order in the shop, we may cite the
case56 of a firm whose discipline, according to its own state-
ment, was very unsatisfactory. In order to remedy the situa-
tion, the firm had called on the union for assistance. The
labor manager and the deputy investigated conditions and
were working together to bring about improvement, when a
new clash occurred. One day, when the shaper was absent,
the piece presser was told to do some shaping. He refused
to do the work and was suspended. The procedure on both
sides was improper. The worker, if he felt that he was

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 259

wrongfully required to do something outside his regular
duties, could have protested and called the shop chairman, to
make sure that his interests would be safeguarded. The
foreman, likewise, had this opportunity to obtain the endorse-
ment of the union representative for his order. He chose
the way of direct action. In reinstating the worker, the
chairman of the Trade Board called attention to the impor-
tance for the firm of entrusting to the union what amounts
to a greater share in the government of the shop. " Disci-
pline," he declared, " rests with the firm but its effectiveness
depends in considerable measure on the co-operation of the
union. The union is co-operating, as testified by the firm,
in helping to restore discipline in the shop. The deputy told
the worker in this case that he was to carry out the order of
the foreman. This is the kind of co-operation that brings
results. * * * "

When necessary, the union goes further, taking a positive
interest in the conduct of its members in the shop. Evidence
of this is supplied by the case of a certain apprentice cutter,57
who was discharged for impertinence to the proprietor after
having had a bad record in the shop for general insubordina-
tion. At the hearing the shop chairman testified that he
had taken the matter up with the union in an effort to bring
the worker under control. He felt that there was no hope of
making an acceptable cutter of the young man and that he
should not be reinstated. In cases of this sort, the interest
of the union in a well-conducted shop coincides, to a certain
extent, with that of the employer, since the habitual misbe-
havior of one worker, if unchecked, may eventually demoral-
ize the entire shop.

The union further holds itself ready to enforce, at the em-
ployer's request, the worker's obligation to give reasonable
notice before quitting his job when there is a shortage of
help in the market. Since this creates for the employer a like
obligation toward the worker in the case of lay-off and on
other occasions, such co-operation on the union's part is only
good policy.

Probably the most serious breach *of shop discipline, which

260 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

is at the same time a violation of the agreement, and, there-
fore, of direct concern to the organization, is the stoppage or
shop strike. This may be regarded as a survival of the time
before collective bargaining and regular machinery for ad-
justing complaints had been established in the industry.
Stoppages were then not only frequent occurrences, some-
times even taking on the dimensions and stubborn character
of an actual strike, but they were unavoidable as a way for
the workers to obtain attention for their grievances. They
were explosions of rebellious feeling bound to result under
a system of repressive shop government that refused to take
the human instincts of the workers into account. Under that
system there could be no parley between workers and man-
agement, for the workers' spokesman would be liable to
prompt discharge for his pains, and certainly would be re-
garded as an undesirable agitator.

This state of affairs has radically altered in consequence
of the coming of the union and orderly government into the
industry. No longer are absolute powers wielded by fore-
men over their workers without regard to these workers'
rights and wants. Instead, we now have foremen shorn of
all arbitrary power and even the higher officials of manage-
ment exercising what authority remains to them subject to
the restraints of law, established procedure, and judicial re-
view. Instead of an occasional spokesman risking his job
for his fellow workers in presenting their grievances, they
have regularly elected and duly recognized representatives
in every shop, who enjoy not only immunity from persecu-
tion but also the courtesy and respect due union officials in
dealing with the management. And, finally, instead of
grievances accumulating until they become unbearable and
find vent in sporadic revolt, every grievance or dispute can
be effectively aired and adjusted through the legally estab-
lished channels, as it arises.

And still there are stoppages of work. They occur less
often and involve less bitterness than formerly, but they in-
terrupt production and may entail loss of earnings to other
workers. From the standpoint of reasonable adjustment

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 261

of differences, stoppages represent a step backward. They
are a form of direct action that is both wasteful and unneces-
sary because other methods of redress are available. In view
of this wastefulness of stoppages as regards both workers'
earnings and shop production, and also because of their un-
dermining effect upon the authority and prestige of the union
itself, stoppages have been outlawed under the agreement.
They are specifically forbidden and the union accepts re-
sponsibility for suppressing them. Under these circum-
stances, a stoppage, from being merely a question of shop
discipline — a problem primarily for the employer — may be-
come a matter of organization discipline — a problem for the
union. For it is at this point that the union is concerned
not merely with maintaining the flow of production but also
with vindicating its authority and prestige with the member-
ship.

In carrying out its police function in cases of stoppages
the union, through its officials, appeals to the workers con-
cerned to return to their places in the shop and to resume
operations. Sometimes the authority of the shop chairman
is insufficient to secure compliance and it is necessary for a
deputy of the organization to be called in. The procedure
as well as the law on the subject may be illustrated by the
following case :58 A firm complained that an entire coat shop
had stopped work for four hours, and requested the Trade
Board to impose " such discipline as it deems just to prevent
a recurrence of this violation and restore order in this shop."
The stoppage had developed out of the lay-off of an off-
presser, who, before leaving the shop acted in a manner to
rouse sympathy for himself among other workers. As he
left, first some and then all except the shop chairman stopped
work. The shop chairman failed in his effort to get them
to resume. So did a deputy sent by the manager of the
union. It was only when the regular deputy for the shop
came in that they returned to work. In ruling on this case,
the chairman of the Trade Board gave the following opin-
ion: ' With operation under the agreement for more than
a year and a half, and with explanations and orders from

262 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the shop chairman and a deputy, the Trade Board sees no
excuse for the behavior in this instance. The workers grossly
violated the agreement, which explicitly provides that there
shall be no stoppages or interruptions of work and provides
a reasonable way to see that justice shall be done. They
have not acted as intelligent and responsible members of the
Amalgamated, which, as shown by its efforts, deplores such
action." As a penalty, the Board imposed on every partici-
pant in the stoppage a fine equal to four hours' earnings, the
money to be applied by the Trade Board to relieving cases
of need.

The union has, in the course of time, come to assume the
full responsibility for suppressing and preventing unauthor-
ized stoppages by its members. In a case89 similar to the
above, all the workers in a coat shop stopped work when a
pocket maker was discharged, although the cause for his dis-
charge was apparently unknown to them at the time. Both
the deputy and the shop chairman tried to get the people to
resume work and finally took them to union headquarters.
But while some on returning to the shop resumed work,
others still refused and demanded the reinstatement of the
worker. The Trade Board in its decision stated that the
firm would have been justified under the agreement in dis-
charging these recalcitrant ones. Technically speaking, the
firm had this right and was inclined to invoke it, but prac-
tically it saw an advantage in leaving discipline of the offend-
ers to the union.

The union, through the agreement, denies the employer
the right to discharge automatically workers who participate
in a stoppage, except in aggravated instances like the one
just cited where they fail to return within a specified time
of being ordered back by the union. The organization is
therefore under the obligation as well as under the incentive
to see that its orders to such workers to resume work are
obeyed. Stoppages are in violation of the agreement. The
union is as much concerned as the employer in making sure
that the agreement is lived up to. The power to enforce
observance by its members of the terms of the agreement,

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 263

i.e., its disciplinary control over the membership, is indirectly
involved. It is the basis for the union's claim that it is able
to cany out the obligations assumed by it under the agree-
ment. Upon that control over its own members, moreover,
rests the right of the union to protect against automatic dis-
charge those of their members who violate the agreement by
taking part in stoppages.

The habit of resorting to stoppages of work is still fairly
strong among the rank and file of clothing workers. It is
the habit of striking or striking back when the method of
peaceful adjustment seems too roundabout or too slow. It
is this impatience or lack of confidence in the processes of
adjustment by conference or judicial hearing and decision
that accounts for much of the difficulty union officials meet
in ordering workers to abandon a stoppage. Nevertheless,
the total elimination of stoppages is now an avowed purpose
of the organization. It places sufficient confidence in the
workings of the impartial machinery as an instrument of
justice to be willing to disarm to this extent. Furthermore,
it is committed to carry out this policy of its own initiative
and actively to support the impartial machinery in its efforts
to the same end. The task of abolishing stoppages, however,
is not to be accomplished by fiat or resolution. It means
uprooting habits of long standing — mental habits bred by
bitter experience in the years when nothing but an open show
of force would avail against the employer's force. It is a
task of education requiring time and effort rather than severe
measures of repression. For, ultimately, it aims at nothing
less than preparing the workers for full citizenship in the
industry — a citizenship capable of supporting a civilized shop
government, as distinguished from the rule of violence and
reprisal. In the meantime, the union is exerting its authority
and moral influence to create this new attitude on the part
of the membership. And the impartial machinery is increas-
ingly relying on these educational efforts of the union for
the gradual elimination of stoppages altogether.

The manner in which the union acts not only to combat an
existing stoppage but also to discourage future stoppages

264 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

may be seen from the following case:60 The cutters in a
certain house stopped work as a protest against the
discharge of a fellow worker. They refused to resume
though instructed to do so by the shop chairman, the fore-
man, the superintendent, and the labor manager, and even
by the union deputy over the telephone. It was not until the
deputy came in person that they returned to work. The
Trade Board in its opinion on the case declared: " Every
stoppage is a flagrant violation of the agreement. The Trade
Board is determined to put an end to stoppages and has
every confidence that the union will co-operate to that end.
In this case the union deputy has held a shop meeting and
exacted a promise from every worker that a stoppage would
not be participated in again."

Inasmuch as the transfer of disciplinary power from the
employer to the impartial machinery takes place in the inter-
est of the rule of reason and law, it follows that the union
itself must bow to this new authority. The union no less
than the employer becomes subject to the law of the industry
as it is laid down in the agreement and developed through
the decisions of the impartial chairman. The union no less
than the employer becomes accountable to the impartial ma-
chinery, as the embodiment of the law, for the proper en-
forcement of its decisions and orders. In fact, in the lan-
guage of an opinion by the Board of Arbitration,61 " the
firms and the deputies are the agents of the impartial ma-
chinery in carrying out decisions from which they do not
appeal." The union to this extent becomes the custodian of
the law, charged with the responsibility of upholding it
against infraction by its own members.

But the union is not, primarily, a policeman. It is first of
all the spokesman and defender of the workers over against
their employers. It cannot be expected, therefore, to take
the initiative in shop discipline, except where the integrity
of the agreement is involved. In that case, the union inter-
venes to protect its members against themselves. Its func-
tion as disciplinarian — apart from maintaining organization
discipline within — is, rather, that of putting into effect meas-

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 265

ures ordered or recommended by the Trade Board against
its members. In this it takes over what would otherwise be
a function of the employer or of the management. Thus,
for example, in a case where the Trade Board had decreed
a fine against a group of cutters for an unlawful stoppage,
the fine was to be deducted from their wages by the em-
ployer. The union appealed the case to the Board of Arbi-
tration,61 with the result that this Board ruled that " with
reference to the method of collecting fines, it may well be
that it would be better to collect them through the shop chair-
man or the union than through the firm as has tended to
become customary in this market."

In another case62 a cutter asked for a release, and on be-
ing refused instead of taking the matter up with his
shop chairman tried to invite discharge by threatening and
insulting the foreman. The Trade Board in pointing out
that mere discharge would not be discipline in this case, since
it would but meet the cutter's request, ordered that he be
discharged and directed the union not to transfer him to an-
other cutting room for a period of four days thereafter.

In other situations the co-operation of the union with the
impartial machinery takes the form of education and advice
rather than of punishment of delinquent workers. Thus,
in the case of a certain stoppage,63 the Trade Board found
that " a number of the workers in this case claimed that they
did not know of the provision against stoppages. If this is
true," the chairman observed, " the union should be at pains
to see to it that every worker is acquainted with the terms
of the agreement and the method of procedure in case of
complaint." In dealing with another stoppage,64 the Trade
Board, after reprimanding the workers participating in it,
charged the union with " the responsibility of impressing
upon them that stoppages are in violation of the agreement
and contrary to the principles of the organization." And
then, referring to the low morale in the shop, the Board con-
cluded: " The union is seeking to co-operate with the firm
in bringing about better discipline. This * * * should
be kept constantly in mind and emphasized to the workers

266 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

at shop meetings." In still another stoppage case,65 the
Trade Board, having ordered the discharge of several in-
stigators, directed the union " to take active measures to
put an end to stoppages."

Where the stoppage grows out of the workers' fixed belief
that direct action is justifiable under conditions of provoca-
tion, the need for enlightenment at the hands of the union
is particularly urgent. In such a case,66 the Trade Board
declared that " it does not recognize that stoppages are ever
justified under the agreement. These workers feel, appar-
ently, that some complaints can be adjusted in no other way
than by stopping work. That attitude, if persisted in, is as
certain to undermine effective control by the organization
as it is to break down the spirit of the agreement which means
nothing if not the substitution of orderly processes for direct
action. It is clear that educational work is badly needed
with this group of workers if they are to measure up as mem-
bers of the Amalgamated. The Board * * * expects
the union to keep constantly before the workers their obliga-
tions under the agreement."

In obstinate cases, where a severe strain is put on the
authority of union officials in their efforts to call off the stop-
page, the union may be even more concerned than the em-
ployer in the immediate success of these efforts. Such out-
breaks are capable of shaking the very foundations of the
fabric of collective bargaining. For this rests, after all, on
the power of the organization to guarantee performance by
its members of their obligations under the agreement. In
cases of this, type, the Trade Board leaves to the union's dis-
cretion the specific remedy to be applied, since the offense
is one not merely against shop discipline and agreement, but
against the authority of the organization as well. In one in-
stance of this sort,67 the deputy came to the shop and suc-
ceeded in putting the people back to work. He left the
shop and in about five minutes the people stopped again and
remained idle until the end of the working day. After hear-
ing the case brought by the employer, the Trade Board
stated that " the stoppage was not only an act of contempt

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 267

for the orderly procedure established by agreement, but was
an offense against the organization and the deputy * * *.
The workers deliberately disregarded the instructions of the
deputy and indulged in another stoppage as soon as the
deputy left the shop. The organization cannot afford in
its own interest to permit so flagrant a disregard of authority
to go unchallenged. The Board places upon the union the
responsibility of seeing to it that these workers are not in
doubt as to their obligations to the organization and under
the agreement, and warns the workers that severe discipline
must be imposed by the Trade Board if the offense is re-
peated."

In another stoppage of this character,68 occasioned by the
employment of an apprentice, the cutters in question were
ordered to resume work by the foreman, the shop chairman,
the union deputy (over the telephone) and by the coat shop
deputy in person. In defiance of all orders, according to
the firm's complaint, they steadfastly refused to work until
sometime after Union Deputy G. arrived on the scene. The
union at the hearing of this case volunteered to apply its
own discipline, giving assurance to the Trade Board " that
a thorough investigation would be made, individual respon-
sibility determined, and summary action taken, even to the
extent of removing from the cutting room those found
guilty." The Trade Board, in acceding to the union's sug-
gestion to assume the punishment of its insubordinate mem-
bers, pointed out that " their offense consisted not alone in
violating the agreement; they ignored, in fact, the acts of
their own organization in protesting the employment of an
apprentice sent to the firm by the organization. Because
of this the Board believes that the organization should have
the opportunity of measuring out its own discipline. It
will be better for the organization and will accomplish, from
the standpoint of the agreement, all that Trade Board disci-
pline would accomplish."

As a result of such enlargement of the union's responsibil-
ity and power in matters of discipline, there is growing up
an effective co-operation between it and the Trade Board

268 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

that enhances the authority of both in the government of the
shop. Incidentally, it creates an increasing reliance by the
Board upon the organization as an executive organ of this
government. As has already appeared in the matter of stop-
pages in particular, the union's co-operation may take the
form not only of the direct application of its own penalties
to offending members, but also of educational and moral
pressure exerted upon them. Thus, the union may offer to
stand surety for a member who otherwise would incur pun-
ishment by order of the Trade Board, which punishment
would be carried out by the employer. By way of illustra-
tion, there is the case of B,69 a trimmer discharged for wast-
ing time, low production, and cleaning up before quitting
time. Though the evidence against B was weighty, the Trade
Board directed his reinstatement on the strength of the
union's promise that he should cease wasting time, obey
orders, and increase his production at least to his former
rating.

ORGANIZATION DISCIPLINE— SHOP CHAIRMEN

As the principles of collective bargaining come to be ap-
plied to more and more of the relations between the workers
? and the industry, the union acquires constantly new and
larger functions. It extends its control gradually over all
the questions of shop government — questions affecting not
merely the conditions of work and pay but also the rights and
duties of the workers in the shop. The shop itself has be-
come the main theatre for the union's activity: the field for
the exercise of its rights and powers on behalf of its mem-
bers. The rights and powers of management, to be sure,
remain as before in the hands of the employer. But they
are no longer exclusive rights: their exercise is limited at
every point by the rights and interests of the workers. And
these rights and interests are expanding. The workers
through their organization are thus gradually acquiring a
permanent stake in the industry itself, and an effective voice

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 269

in its management, at least in so far as the control of their
own lot as workers is concerned.

But as the extension of the union's function into the sphere
of management proceeds, it follows inevitably that along
with its new rights and powers the union takes on corre-
sponding responsibilities and obligations. These take the
form of organization discipline, control over its own member-
ship. Organization discipline is needful from two points of
view: that of conflict with the employers, and that of co-
operation with them. In case of strike, for example, the
union acts as an army with centralized command and willing
support from the ranks. In ordinary times this solidarity
is somewhat relaxed, but it cannot be abandoned entirely
without risk of losing what has been won by struggle and
sacrifice. The collective agreement registers these gains;
but it does not of itself guarantee their maintenance. The
enforcement of the agreement, so far as the workers' inter-
ests are concerned, rests ultimately with the workers' or-
ganization. And the power of the organization to make
such enforcement effective depends upon the degree of disci-
pline within its ranks. On the other hand, the spirit of the
agreement demands that while the workers' rights under it
are to be enforced, their obligations under it shall also be
observed and the power of the union shall be employed if
necessary to enforce their observance. The effect of this is
to extend the sphere of organization discipline right into the
shop and to make the union responsible, in so far, for shop
discipline, production, and even the general welfare of the
industry in the market.

The need of a strong and stable union to uphold the col-
lective standards of the industry against anarchic competi-
tion not only on the side of individual employers but also
of individual workers, i.e., against its own members, is fully
recognized. In view of this need the agreement provides for
the strengthening and stabilizing of the union by various
means. Among these is the reinforcement of organization
discipline and of the authority of organization officials at the
hands of the impartial machinery. Under the Hart, Schaff-

270 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

ner and Marx agreement " the Trade Board and Board of
Arbitration are authorized to hear complaints from the
union concerning the discipline of its members and to take
any action necessary to conserve the interests of the Agree-
ment." Under this clause the union is able to secure the
support of the impartial machinery on behalf of the collection
of dues and assessments from its delinquent members. The
performance by a union worker of his membership obliga-
tions and his observance of the rules of his organization have
become a concern of the Trade Board, inasmuch as the
strength and discipline of the union are recognized as essen-
tial to the maintenance of the agreement.

In one case before the Trade Board70 the union asked for
discipline of V, a member who had failed to pay his assess-
ment quota. V stated that he would pay $10 on account by
Friday of that week. His promise was accepted by the union
and the Trade Board, with the stipulation by the Board that
if he does not pay $10 on Friday he will be subject to dis-
charge at the close of work that evening.

A similar case71 is that of P, whom the union brought be-
fore the Trade Board for discipline for refusing to pay his
dues and assessments. The Trade Board was not impressed
by the excuses that P gave for failure to pay, as he was evi-
dently in better financial condition than most of the workers.
The Trade Board therefore directed that P was to go to the
union office and pay his back dues and assessments by Mon-
day evening and was to secure an O. K. to that effect from
the deputy before being permitted to work Tuesday morning.

In another case72 the union requested the discharge of a
trimmer who had been suspended from the union for refusing
to pay a fine duly imposed by the organization. The firm
protested that the worker had been fined for " refusing to
obey an order of the assistant shop chairman, which order
was contrary to an order of the foreman." The Trade Board,
in granting the union's request, found " nothing unreasonable
in the rule of the union that workers must carry out the in-
structions of the shop chairman or shop representative. On
the contrary, the union cannot maintain discipline otherwise."

Ur

Officers and Executive Board Members, Pant Makers
Local 144

Officers and Executive Board Members, Vest Makers
Local 154

Officers and Executive Board Members, Cloth Exam-
iners and Spongers Local 271

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 271

and the union's right of discipline over its members who
fail to carry out the rules of the organization was sustained
by the Trade Board on the ground that, without it, " there
is no assurance that it can maintain that degree of control
essential to the effectiveness of the agreement." The Board
accordingly ruled that the trimmer in question " may not be
employed by this firm at this time unless he is reinstated as
a member of the union."

Not only does the impartial machinery strengthen the
union's hand in matters of internal control, but also in the
case of shop chairmen who fail in their duties as officials is
the union given fairly broad discretion in the application
of its own discipline. The shop chairman being accountable
for his conduct in the shop to the organization, insofar as
he acts in his official capacity, it is expedient to charge the
organization with his discipline. In a Trade Board case73
involving this question of the union's right to impose its own
discipline upon a shop chairman who had employed abusive
language to a fellow worker in the shop, the Board ruled as
follows: ' The Trade Board has gone on record previously
as favoring discipline by the union through its own agencies
in cases involving the relationship of union members and
where there is indication that the discipline will be effective.
It is as much to the interest of the union as to the interest of
the firm to see^to it that the shop chairman enjoys the confi-
dence and respect of his fellow-workers. The Trade Board
directs that the union advise the action taken by the Execu-
tive Board with respect to the charge * * *."

In an opinion by the Board of Arbitration74 approving
this policy, it declared that " the Trade Board has acted
wisely in withholding decisions in some cases in order to give
the union opportunity to make a needed change (in its shop
representative) , for this gives the best assurance against un-
wise selections to fill a vacancy * * *."

Since the shop chairman is responsible to the organization
for his conduct as an official, his discipline is to that extent
a matter of internal discipline. But even in his capacity as
worker the behavior of the shop chairman is of concern to

272 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the union, and his discipline at least partly under its control.
A case in point75 is that of J, a shop chairman, who was dis-
charged by the firm after having been caught " fooling
around " a number of times. The Trade Board found that
discipline had been lax in that department and that " horse-
play " and fooling around had been engaged in. The Board
nevertheless disallowed the discharge on the ground that al-
though J had been falling down as shop chairman, these facts
had not been " brought to the attention of the union, as is
expected in the case of shop chairmen. The evidence shows
that J's record was carefully followed by the deputy for two
or three months after he was sent into this place and that
he was reported to be satisfactory. The firm has not in-
formed the deputy of any change in the record, and this
is expected in the case of shop chairmen."

The question of disciplinary jurisdiction over union offi-
cials in the shop came up before the Board of Arbitration76
on request by the Trade Board for an interpretation of the
clause in the Hart, Schaffner and Marx agreement, which
reads as follows : " Complaint against members of the Trade
Board as workmen are to be made by the foreman to the
Trade Board." The company contended that this clause did
not render a shop chairman immune to suspension for
breaches of discipline and misconduct, as contrasted with
complaint as to his work. The Board of Arbitration decided
unanimously that the above procedure should apply to all
cases of complaint against shop chairmen as workmen, and
stated: " This extension of the procedure is intended to give
additional dignity to the union officials in order that they
may co-operate more efficiently in carrying out the purposes
of the agreement * * *." In a later decision,77 dealing with
a case on appeal, the chairman of the Board of Arbitration
took occasion to urge upon all labor managers in the market
that " in the cases of discipline which involve shop chairmen
they shall proceed by filing charges before the Trade Board
rather than by summary action. In many cases, of course,
the best method will be to proceed by bringing the matter
first of all to the attention of the union deputy."

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 273

By thus removing shop chairmen for all practical purposes
from the disciplinary control of the employer, the union gains
greater freedom of action in the shop — a freedom of action
that is necessary in the interest of efficient administration of
the agreement. Besides this immunity to company disci-
pline, the shop chairman enjoys certain rights and preroga-
tives that pertain to his office and in which he is protected by
the impartial machinery. These rights and prerogatives,
conceded to him in the name of the organization, extend to
all matters of organization business that must be transacted
on the floor of the shop. On this point the Hart, Schaffner
and Marx agreement provides, in part, as follows : " The
union shall have in each shop a duly accredited representa-
tive authorized by the Joint Board who shall be recognized
as the officer of the union having charge of complaints and
organization matters within the shop * * *. It is under-
stood the shop representative shall be entitled to collect dues
and perform such other duties as may be imposed on him
by the Union, provided they be performed in such manner
as not to interfere with shop discipline and efficiency."

Claiming the protection of this provision of the agreement
for all workers in the market, the union complained in one
instance78 of the rule of a firm requiring the special sanction
of the labor manager for the distribution by the shop chair-
man during working hours of any printed matter, appeals
for contributions, etc. The Trade Board ruled that " with
reference to collections other than of union dues and assess-
ments, there should be none made on the floor except for
such cases or causes as are approved by the representatives
of the Union and the firm." As regards the giving out of
handbills in the shop, however, the Board observed that " a
shop chairman naturally dislikes to be placed in the position
of having official announcements of his organization passed
on, even as a formal matter, by a labor manager. The Trade
Board feels that the firm's rule should be revised so as not to
apply to the distribution of announcements of union meet-
ings, classes, concerts, lectures and (union) elections."

In another case79 a firm brought complaint against a shop

274 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

chairman for unnecessary activity on the floor of the shop
during working hours, specifically for selling union picnic
tickets to the workers. In disallowing the firm's complaint,
the Trade Board held that " Tickets for the annual picnic
of the Union were disposed of to workers in all the shops in
the market. It may be regarded as union business and the
rule (that the conduct of union business is not to interfere
with shop efficiency), applies."

N Most of the rights and powers accorded by the agreement
to the union in the shop are exercised by the shop chairman.
It has already been shown that the shop chairman enjoys a
special position among workers with reference to discipline
and discharge, which in his case rests with the Trade Board
and the union. In so far as his official duties require, more-
over, he is entitled to special consideration in respect to his
production or output. The minimum standard, to be sure,
is fixed for him as for any other worker by the record made
during his probationary period on the job. For " the shop
chairman is a worker, and if he is going to be a good chair-
man he must be a good, conscientious worker." But an al-
lowance is made in his favor on account of time spent by him
in conducting necessary union business during working
hours. In one case80 the firm requested the discharge of a
shop chairman on the ground that his production had fallen
considerably below his probationary performance. The
Trade Board ruled that " the firm has a right to expect him
to maintain that standard when the work is on the floor.
Some allowance should be made on account of his being shop
chairman, but this should not affect his production materially.
The Trade Board directs that he be placed on probation with
the explicit understanding that he is to come up to the stan-
dard * * * less an allowance because of his duties as
shop chairman."

Obviously, such an allowance cannot cover more than this.
It cannot be used to shield a shop chairman from the con-
sequences of inefficiency as a workman. In one case,81 the
company asked for the discharge of P, a shop chairman in
the cutting room, basing its request on P's production rec-

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 275

ord. The company considered his falling off in production
so unexplainable as to indicate deliberate waste of effort
on his part. The Trade Board, however, held that if P's
lack of production was due to his official duties, as he claimed,
that could be made manifest by relieving him of his official
responsibilities, thus enabling him to give all his time to
cutting. The Trade Board accordingly recommended "that
P be withdrawn as a union official and given the same status
as a regular cutter. This should enable him to recover his
former production."

In a similar case,82 the company complained of one F,
shop steward, on the ground of habitual tardiness and low
production, and requested discipline. On the basis of his
production record, which was far below average, the Trade
Board was of the opinion that " F's low production cannot
be accounted for except on two grounds: either he is delib-
erately laying down on his work or he spends so much time
on his duties as a union official as to reduce his production
so seriously. In view of this consideration, the Trade Board
recommends that F be withdrawn by the union as shop stew-
ard and be given an opportunity to advance his production
without being hindered by any official duties. This should
also improve his record for tardiness."

The scope of the shop chairman's authority as representa-
tive of the workers in relation to the management is defined
broadly in the agreement in these terms : " He shall be em-
powered to receive complaints and be given sufficient oppor-
tunity and range of action to enable him to make proper in-
quiry concerning them." Questions frequently arise over
the limits of his authority in practice, where it conflicts with
the authority of the foreman or other representatives of man-
agement. Thus, in one case,83 where the employer had com-
plained of a shop chairman giving orders to the people con-
trary to the orders of the management, the Trade Board
ruled that a shop chairman " should know that he has no
authority to contradict or countermand orders of the man-
agement, but he has full right to complain and protest
against an order." In another case84 the Trade Board held

276 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

that " the shop chairman has no business to ring the bell "
at quitting time, this being the function of the time-keeper.
Furthermore, " a shop chairman is not to run around the
shop looking for or making trouble."

In the matter of disputed work, for example, " a shop
chairman is presumed only to take up cases brought to his
attention with a request, not to take the initiative in holding
for investigation." " But he does have the right to take up
complaints of workers on the floor, and, if necessary, to leave
his place of work to do so." In the words of a Trade Board
decision,83 " Shop chairmen under the agreement have the
right to transact union business on the floor of their factory,
and if this business requires them to go to another factory (of
the same firm), undoubtedly permission can be gotten, but it
must be applied for, and cannot be assumed. A shop chair-
man possessing authority as an official of his union can
always afford to be courteous and observe the rules of the
game. If a reasonable request is refused he can bring com-
plaint." And on his part, in all his relations with the manage-
ment, he is entitled to recognition and courteous treatment :85
" The shop chairman is to be dealt with as the representative
of the workers and accorded the same courtesy that repre-
sentatives of the firm have a right to expect."

The rights and powers of the shop chairman, however,
are not personal privileges and immunities enjoyed by him
as an individual. They are directly related to his duties
and responsibilities as a representative of the union in the
shop. Thus, while the shop chairman may, when necessary,
" leave his place to investigate complaints," this right is
qualified by considerations of general discipline and effi-
ciency in the shops. For " the foreman may, if he deems it
necessary, ask to be informed of the purpose of his move-
ments, and the representative (shop chairman) shall comply
with his request." The agreement contemplates, moreover,
that the relations of the shop chairman to the management
shall be dignified and mutually helpful rather than strained
or based on a contest of authority and technical rights. In
any situation involving friction between the workers and the

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 277

firm, the shop chairman's function is to uphold orderly pro-
cedure as against direct action. "It is expected," declares
the agreement, " that he will represent the cooperative spirit
of the agreement in the shop, and shall be the leader in pro-
moting that amity and spirit of good will which it is the
purpose of this instrument to establish."

In a case before the Trade Board86 a firm complained of
a shop chairman on the ground of lack of cooperation and
general incompetence. The Board, after concluding from
the evidence that this official had not taken the proper atti-
tude toward the management, but had magnified his author-
ity, declared that " a shop chairman should be able to pro-
tect the interests of the workers at every point and at the
same time convince the management of his fairness and
willingness to cooperate * * *. When a worker is in the
wrong, it is as much the duty of the shop chairman to tell
him so as it is the right and duty of the shop chairman to
defend the worker when the firm is in the wrong." As a
representative of the organization, the shop chairman is ex-
pected to uphold both purposes of the agreement: that of
efficient production as well as that of an efficient union, and
both are to be promoted by methods of reasonable adjust-
ment.

Among the various duties of the shop chairman is that of
forestalling resort to direct action or other infractions of
the agreement by the workers in the shop. Many stoppages,
for example, are due to the workers' fear, sometimes un-
founded, that the employer is trying to " put something
over." Whenever, in particular, the management under-
takes to put into operation some new or changed method of
work that might conceivably affect the workers' standards,
their suspicion and consequently their opposition are
promptly aroused. The innovation may be trivial or its
effect on earnings may have been foreseen by the firm and
duly referred to the price committee for adjustment of the
piece rate. But this is not sufficient. The workers affected
by the change must be informed of whatever joint arrange-
ment has been made, if any, between the firm and the union

278 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

representative. They must be assured that their interests
are fully safeguarded under the new method and that they
are justified in doing the work as ordered. This is the duty
of the shop chairman in the situation, he being the repre-
sentative of the union on the ground. It is for him to com-
municate to the people in the shop the action of the union on
their behalf, so that there be no misunderstanding and no
interruption of work. If he is efficient in protecting the
workers' interests at every critical juncture, there need be no
attempt on their part to take matters into their own hands.

To illustrate:87 A firm complained of a stoppage by its
brushers, who had refused to baste vents. The deputy and
the firm had agreed a week before on a price for this new
work. Though the shop chairman was informed of the price
agreed upon he failed to explain it to the brushers, hence
their refusal to do the work when ordered. The chairman
of the Trade Board stated at the hearing that " there is no
reason why the workers should not have been advised ex-
plicitly what they were to do and what they were to receive
for doing it. The shop chairman had ample time to do this
but whether from indifference or ignorance as to his duties,
made no attempt to prepare the workers for the additional
operation and seemingly made little effort to end the mis-
understanding after it had arisen." And, then, by way of
impressing upon the shop chairman his responsibility in such
situations, the chairman of the Board concluded : " If this is
a fair sample of the way he measures up as shop chairman,
the union will do well to see to it that he is replaced by a
worker who has more initiative and some sense of the re-
sponsibility that attaches to the office of shop chairman."

In another case,88 where stoppage was occasioned by the
employment of an assistant foreman) previously employed by
a non-union house, the shop chairman and the deputy were
censured by the Trade Board for failure to prevent it. The
Board found that " what this shop needs is stronger leader-
ship— someone who will impress upon the workers that com-
plaints are not to be adjusted by stoppages; and who is con-
stantly on the job to prevent trouble."

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 279

The shop chairman is at all times and under all circum-
stances bound to use his authority for law and order as em-
bodied in the agreement. For him to order a stoppage or to
incite it in any manner is a misuse of his power and a viola-
tion of his trust as an official. In one instance of this kind,89
the Trade Board held that " the shop chairman knows that
stoppages are forbidden by agreement, but seems to feel that
in cases of extreme provocation there is nothing else to do
but display authority. This attitude cannot be permitted on
the part of, a shop chairman who is supposed to be the repre-
sentative of the organization in the shop and to be zealous
in upholding orderly procedure."

Corresponding to the right accorded the shop chairman by
the agreement to be " recognized as the officer of the union
having charge of complaints * * * within the shop,"
he is charged with the responsibility of taking up with the
management all complaints of fellow workers brought to
his attention. The individual bargaining that once obtained
between foreman or superintendent and the particular worker
complaining or complained of, easily led to injustice and
recrimination or even to personal violence. Today the worker
is represented by his shop chairman, who not only under-
stands the concrete background of the complaint but also
stands on the jointly accepted principles of the agreement,
and can, if necessary, appeal to the power of the union and
the impartial machinery to back him up. Under these cir-
cumstances the worker has no justification or need for re-
sorting to direct action in any form in cases of dispute with
the foreman. When such clashes do occur, they are fre-
quently due to some failure on the part of the shop chairman
either to be called in or to function properly as an official
of the union. The latter situation is illustrated in the case
of a cutter90 discharged after an altercation with the foreman
over his production. At the hearing the shop chairman sup-
ported the cutter's testimony that he worked steadily and
honestly at his board, also that the cutter came to him com-
plaining that the foreman " picked on him " and the chair-
man approved of the cutter going over to tell the foreman

280 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

so and to challenge him to " lay off." The Trade Board
ruled that the shop chairman had no business to permit the
cutter to go over to the foreman and talk as he did. ' If
the man thought he was heing picked on, the chairman should
have handled his complaint. The chairman's statement that
he thought it of no importance is not a satisfactory explana-
tion." The worker's quarrel with the foreman became a con-
cern of the union as soon as it was reported to the shop chair-
man, and thereafter the union would bear the responsibility
for the consequences.

Of

AtflNtt

CHAPTER XII

PROTECTION OF WORKING CONDITIONS

THE record given in the foregoing pages of the growth
of constitutional checks upon the employer's discharge power
means, from the worker's point of view, the achievement of
a presumptive right to the job. This right is of prime im-
portance and serves as a foundation for other rights that
have been built upon it. The conditions that make the job
a thing worth defending have themselves to be defended.
In the present chapter it is intended to trace the development
of the worker's right to the maintenance of the conditions
and standards of his work. Those working conditions and
standards are particularly exposed to a nibbling process
whenever a change is ordered in the worker's assignment or
method of operation within the factory. Accordingly, it is
at such points that the union has struggled and succeeded
in establishing the principle of protection for the worker's
tenure of his job and for the customary conditions of his
job against deterioration.

THE TRANSFER OF WORKERS

Among the administrative functions expressly reserved to
the employer by the agreement is that of transferring work-
ers within the establishment. The transfer may be made
from one operation or section to another, from one method
of work to another at a given operation, or under certain con-
ditions from one form of compensation to another. The
exercise by the employer of his power of transfer is, howevert
limited by consideration of the worker's rights and interests
under the agreement. It is limited and controlled very much
as are other administrative powers of management affecting
workers, such as the power of discipline, of lay-off, etc.
While the use of the right of transfer within these constitu-
tional limits does not require justification by the employer,

282 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

at least the implicit assumption in every case is that it serves
the ends of efficiency. In the language of the agreement,

" The company has the right to transfer employes for pur-
poses of administration or discipline, subject to review by the
Trade Board. If the Board finds that any transfer is being
made to lower wages, or for any discrimination or improper
purpose, or if injustice is being done the worker by the transfer,
the Board may adjust the complaint."

The right to transfer workers for purposes of discipline
is occasionally invoked by employers in preference to the
harsher penalty of suspension. In view of the safeguards
against abuse erected in the clause of the agreement just
cited, it confers on the management no perilous power over
the worker's conditions of employment. Even when transfer
takes the form of a shift from week-work to piece-work, it
must not have the effect of reducing the worker's earnings.
The natural tendency of such a change is to stimulate him to
greater effort in his work and to increase production. But
so long as it does not unduly " speed up " the worker in the
attempt to make his customary wage, it is often the most
appropriate remedy against slacking.

In an early case91 involving this use of the power of
transfer and decided on appeal by Mr. Williams, the issue
presented itself in this form : " Has the company a right to
transfer a worker for disciplinary purposes, especially to
check ' soldiering,' from week- work to piece-work?" And
the conclusion was that " in the opinion of the chairman the
company has the right, subject to review by the Trade Board.
The facts in any such case may be investigated by the Board,
and if it is found that the transfer is being made to lower
wages, or for any discriminatory or improper purpose, or if
injustice is being done the worker by such transfer, the Board
may take such action as in its judgment is necessary to give
justice to the worker, whether by adjusting his earnings in
the new position or by reinstating him in his old position."

When workers are transferred for administrative reasons
from the shop to a corresponding operation in another shop
of the same firm, they are obliged to accept the conditions

PROTECTING WORKING CONDITIONS 288

and specifications of work obtaining in the section to which
they are assigned. The only limitation imposed on the em-
ployer in this connection is that the workers' wages shall not
be lowered in consequence of the transfer, and their interests
generally shall not be injured. In a case before the Trade
Board92 the union! asked for reinstatement with back pay of
five second basters discharged for refusing to baste coats
according to the method used in the shop to which they had
been transferred. The company claimed it was simply seek-
ing to secure conformity to the practice in this shop and was
following a recognized usage which requires the person who
is transferred to adopt the practice of the shop to which he is
transferred. While directing the reinstatement of the men,
the Trade Board denied the request of the union for back
pay, on the ground that it could not treat the claim other
than in similar cases in the past when a dispute had arisen
about a specification and the usage in a shop. " In this in-
stance the standard usage, as well as the language of the
specifications, so far as it is definite, supports the company's
position."

The transfer of a worker from one shop to another involv-
ing no material change in work or pay is clearly within the
sphere of executive action by management. If the worker
thus transferred believes himself disadvantaged in any re-
spect, he may, of course, bring complaint through the regular
channels. The case is somewhat different when the transfer
is made from one section to another, thus entailing a change
of work and earnings for the worker. If the new work is un-
familiar, the problem presented is analogous to that where a
major change of work is introduced in the section that neces-
sitates a period of learning or re-adaptation to the new
process. The worker is entitled to have his customary earn-
ings maintained. That is to say, if necessary, he may demand
to be paid temporarily on an hour basis. Whether the em-
ployer is obliged to grant this demand or has the option of
paying the transferred worker at the existing piece rate
pending an adjustment by the price committee, seems to

284 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

depend on the circumstances in the particular case, and has
not been finally decided as a principle.

One such case93 came up on appeal early in 1916, when a
collar edge baster was suspended on the alleged ground of
insubordination. She had been asked to do work in another
section and declined to do it unless she was assured of hour-
work pay. The manager held that the rule of the house did
not require him to assure her hour work but that she should
accept the transfer either on hour or piece work, subject to
later adjudication. Upon her refusal to accept the transfer
on this basis, she was suspended, and the union then com-
plained that the suspension was unjust and asked for back
pay. In the absence of the other members of the Board of
Arbitration, the chairman refrained from passing on the
general issue of the right of a worker to refuse to accept the
order of the foreman if it seems to him to be contrary to the
provisions of the agreement. On the concrete issue of the
claim of the company to transfer a worker from a slack sec-
tion to a congested section at its option at the piece-work
price of the latter, the chairman merely expressed doubt as
to the soundness of the company's position. Later decisions
have tended to establish the workers' right to refuse a trans-
fer on terms that would entail a reduction of his customary
earnings. Only, if the worker voluntarily accepts the trans-
fer on the understanding that he is to be paid at the piece-
work rate of the new operation, he has no grievance if his
earnings should fall below his customary standard at his
former operation. Insofar as the transfer is made by execu-
tive action, the governing principle is that earnings shall be
maintained. In the case of temporary transfer, at any rate,
of piece workers to operations other than their own, their
right to demand hour work has been definitely recognized.

The considerations limiting the employer in his exercise
of the right of transfer of workers for administrative pur-
poses may be illustrated in a special situation94 where such
transfers were made on an extensive scale. The situation was
that of many firms which during the war undertook large
orders for manufacturing army uniforms. This required

PROTECTING WORKING CONDITIONS 285

them to divert a considerable part of their working force and
plant equipment to the new task, and consequently involved
the transfer of many workers not only from civilian to army
clothing but even from one operation to another, as the bal-
ancing of sections might dictate. In the case of one im-
portant firm having a large order for army overcoats, the
first step was the drawing up by the price committee of a
tentative scale of piece-work rates for all operations. The
rates were so fixed as to enable the various sections employed
on the army coats to maintain their customary earnings on
civilian coats. It was agreed that any revision of the rate
of any section was to be upon the basis of the corresponding
or most similar operation on civilian clothes. For example,
the pocket-making section was to maintain the same earnings
on army coats as on regular coats; but if a high paid or a
lower paid operator from some other section or factory should
be transferred to pocket-making on army work, his former
scale of earnings would not be taken into account in making
revision. This did not mean, of course, that the individual
thus transferred could be compelled to suffer loss of earnings
in the process. The acceptance of transfer was to be optional
with the worker. Once he had accepted, however, the special
agreement required him to accept likewise the tentative piece-
work rate of the operation to which he was assigned. And
this rate would be effective at once, with no basis for claim
for hour work while learning. If it became necessary to
again transfer the worker, his earnings on the new operation
were not to be less than on the previous one.

The principle that a worker's earnings must not be reduced
in consequence of a transfer ordered by the management
applies not merely to piece-work earnings but k> week-work
wages as well. And it applies likewise to such transfers as
involve a change from week-work to piece-work or vice versa.
Under certain conditions this principle of conserving stand-
ards of earnings works out, in practice, to raise them. Such
was the effect in the case95 of a certain under-presser, V, a
week worker at $15.80 per week. V was transferred to a
piece-work operation, canvas pressing, at which he earned

286 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

$18 to $20 per week, and over. After this he was restored
to his week- work job and his wages reduced to his old scale,
$15.80 per week. When the case came up on appeal to the
Board of Arbitration, the chairman held that this was an
unjustifiable reduction. " He feels that the week-work rate
fixed for V was based on the then accepted estimate of his
earning power; that the continuance of that scale was inter-
rupted by his change to another position; that the new posi-
tion enabled him to demonstrate that his earning ability was
greater than the amount previously fixed ; and, in view of the
fact that the week-work to which he was restored was sub-
stantially similar to his piece-work operation, there seems no
valid reason that he should be required to work for a smaller
wage than what he has demonstrated his ability to earn."
The chairman accordingly confirmed the judgment of the
Trade Board, namely, that V should receive the rate deter-
mined by the piece-work earnings with back pay for such
period as he had been receiving the lower rate.

The worker may have other interests than earnings at stake
in the event of transfer. These are such as relate to the de-
sirability of the work, privileges associated with it, oppor-
tunities of advancement afforded by it, and the like. He has
the right to have these interests conserved along with his
wages ; in other words, transfers as administrative in distinc-
tion from disciplinary measures, while they may involve pro-
motion, may not entail demotion for the worker, without his
consent. A decision96 vindicating this principle is found in
the case of F, a worker in the under-collar section, who was
transferred to the matching table, as he believed, to his dis-
advantage. He had been reinstated by the Trade Board,
and the company appealed the decision. The chairman of
the Board of Arbitration found that the question turned on
whether the worker had been transferred without adequate
reason to his own injury. On examination, F testified that
he had worked in the under-collar department for a year and
a half, and he felt that this transfer was a demotion. After
hearing all the testimony, the chairman held that no adequate

PROTECTING WORKING CONDITIONS 287

reason had been offered for reversing the decision of the
Trade Board, and it was, accordingly, sustained.

In another case,97 the worker's complaint was that having
been transferred from the firm's inside shop to the outside
shop, his customary privilege of receiving pay for holidays
was withdrawn. The Trade Board recognized the right of
this worker to carry the conditions and privileges of the in-
side shop with him when transferred to the outside shop, and
ruled that he was entitled to pay for holidays.

The protection in connection with this transfer of the
worker's wage and other standards which is accomplished
under the clause of the agreement quoted on p. 282
above, was not afforded by the agreements prior to 1916.
Accordingly, in a decision of the Board of Arbitration98
given in 1915, the issue arose as a question of interpre-
tation of the minimum wage clause of the agreement then in
force. The company in that case held that when a machine
operator was transferred to a section with which he was un-
familiar, he should take the lower minimum wage of a learner
in that section — i. e., $5 a week. The union, on the other
hand, held that any machine operator who had served over
three months would receive not less than $8 a week wherever
he might be placed. The chairman was of the opinion that
the interpretation of the union was correct and that after
service of three months the machine operator was entitled to
the minimum wage of $8 wherever placed, with the exception
of certain sections especially noted in the clause of the agree-
ment in question.

THE INTRODUCTION OF LABOR-SAVING DEVICES

Thus far we have dealt with the general principles evolved
by the union for limiting the power of management in the
matter of initiating changes in work or pay by administrative
decree. Closely related to this general problem is the special
problem of regulating the introduction of technical improve-
ments in the methods of work, whose effect on the workers,
if left to the uncontrolled action of management, might in-

288 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

volve serious injury to their standards. The most immedi-
ate and obvious tendency of such technical improvements is
to displace workers now employed, who are rendered super-
fluous by the greater efficiency of the " labor-saving " de-
vice. Indeed, this is in most cases not merely an incidental
result, but a direct object of the innovation. The fear of
losing his job — and possibly his livelihood — through being
discarded along with his accustomed skill or method of work
by reason of a new invention, is so deeply rooted in the
worker's mind that he instinctively resists every change pro-
posed by the employer to simplify his task. This also ex-
plains the persistent opposition of workers, both organized
and unorganized, to the sudden substitution of machine proc-
esses for hand labor in their trades. It is only as they gain
the power through organization to control the conditions un-
der which such improvements are to be introduced and used
that their attitude toward the latter changes to one of tolera-
tion and then of co-operation in the technical progress of the
industry.

The Amalgamated Clothing Workers, conscious of its
power to protect its members in their jobs and their rights
against infringement by mechanical improvements, today
stakes the position that no unnecessary restrictions shall be
placed upon such improvements. In a supplement to the
Hart, Schaffner and Marx Agreement of 1919, the point is
covered in the following language: " It is not the purpose
or intention of the Agreement to hinder the introduction of
improved methods or force the retention of inefficient
methods. Under the supervision of the Trade Board, the
company shall not be limited in making experiments and
may select and hire persons for experimental work accord-
ing to its judgment."

There remains the question as to what restrictions are
necessary and how they are to be applied to the management
when a technical innovation is contemplated. Speaking
broadly, the general principle that the interests of the
workers affected by the change must be safeguarded is ap-
plicable here as it is in the case of other changes in work or-

PROTECTING WORKING CONDITIONS 289

dered by the management and the procedure is similar. The
earliest adjudication of this question as one of principle of
which we have record, is found in the opinion by Mr. Wil-
liams," dated April 2, 1915, upholding a decision by Mr.
Mullenbach in the same case.

The subject in dispute was the introduction of a labor-
saving device — perforated patterns — in the trimming room.
The union took the position that it was not opposed to the
introduction of labor-saving machinery, but did not favor
the introduction of processes designed to supplant skilled by
unskilled labor for the purpose of saving wages by lowering
the established scale. While not opposing the introduction
of machinery designed to promote a more efficient produc-
tion, the union realized that it would work to the injury of
its members and felt that it should be made as little oppres-
sive as possible, and to this end it claimed that its members
should be used to operate any machinery or process thus
introduced. In the case in question it appeared that the
company sought to use a young man or office boy in the
operation of the perforated pattern device, and the Trade
Board had ruled that regular employes of the trimming sec-
tion should be given that employment. From this ruling
the company had filed an appeal.

The company contended that the Trade Board had no
power under the agreement to limit its range of selection
of employes for such operations as this; that the operation
in question was properly a boy's job and it should not be
required to pay trimmer's wages for the operation; that the
trimmers were unfriendly to the device, and that its success
ought not to be entrusted to unfriendly hands, and that no
trimmer would want to stay permanently at such work, be-
cause it would be in the nature of a demotion and would
offer no prospect of an advance of pay or status to the man
who worked on it.

In his decision of the main issue, Chairman Williams made
the following ruling:

" With respect to the introduction of labor saving devices
and processes, the chairman concurs in the common agreement

290 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

that the company has the clear and undisputed right to intro-
duce them. If claim is made that their introduction affects
the rights of workers under the agreement, such claims may be
considered and adjudicated in the same manner as any other
claim, whether it relates to wages, persons, or conditions of
work.

" In view of the probable hardship to persons displaced by
such labor-saving device or process, the chairman is inclined
to the position that the persons employed at the work should
as far as possible and practicable be employed to operate the
new device or process; and that such employment would be
more likely to counteract their natural unfriendliness than
would be the act of displacing them altogether.

" Applying these considerations to the situation in the trim-
ming room, the chairman holds that the company should employ
some of the regular employes of the trimming room to operate
the perforating device in dispute, and, therefore, concurs in the
action of the Trade Board."

The substitution of a mechanical device for the older
manual process usually involves a simplification of the opera-
tion. It thereby enables the employer — but for the resist-
ance of the union — to man the new device with unskilled per-
sons at a lower wage. These would in a short time be able to
operate it as efficiently as the skilled hand workers whom
they had displaced. The effect would be to undermine not
only existing wage standards, but even the power of the
union in the industry. The resistance of the union, however,
•: is not merely obstructive ; it is, in effect, constructive. For it
makes possible the prompt adoption of an improvement in
productive technique while at the same time protecting the
workers in their jobs and their other rights under the agree-
ment.

The principle established by the decision of Mr. Williams
regarding the operation of the perforating device served as
a precedent the following year, when a similar issue was pre-
sented for adjustment. In this case100 the union complained
that by the introduction of a new process in the trimming
room, the work formerly done by regular trimmers had been
given to boys earning from $7 to $8 a week. The union took
its stand on the ground of the earlier decision, which held

PROTECTING WORKING CONDITIONS 291

that in the event of the introduction of a new mechanism
or process the work should be done as far as possible by the
workers in the section affected without loss of earning power.
The result was an adjustment by mutual agreement, by
which the trimmers were assured the work which had for-
merly been theirs.

The principle that workers have a virtual property right
in their jobs, which forbids their displacement by other-
workers when the method of work is changed through the
introduction of a machine or other labor-saving process, has
only become established in consequence of repeated contests
successfully waged before the impartial machinery. The
same is true of the rule that such workers' earnings are to be
maintained when they pass from the old to the new method
of working. The following case101 is of special historic inter-
est because it marks a decisive vindication of both of these
principles and has provided, in its turn, a precedent for
later decisions.

Professor Howard, as deputy for the company, presented
the following:

" PETITION TO BOARD OF ARBITRATION FOR RULING CONCERNING
VEST PRESSING MACHINES.

" The company desires to install automatic vest pressing
machines. These machines effect a large saving of labor and
expense, principally by making unnecessary the employment of
skilled pressers to operate them.

" I can find nothing in our agreement which forbids the com-
pany to operate these machines with men adapted both by phy-
sical strength and standard of wages to the machines. The
scale of this grade of labor is about $15.00. As soon as pos-
sible, the price committee should make a piece-work price based
on work of a similar grade of skill and effort.

" The pressers by hand are receiving an abnormal piece-price
which is one of the errors made irrevocable by the first rulings
of the Board which forced the company to retain all prices then
existing plus 10 per cent. There would be no possibility of
retaining the present pressers on this work, because their spe-
cialized skill is not needed and because they are not adapted to
the work. The agreement provides that these pressers shall be
given ' employment as much as possible like the new work from

292 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

which they were displaced.' This would probably be coat off-
pressing.

" The deputy for the company wishes to have a ruling from
the Board as to the correctness of this interpretation of the
agreement and to make sure that nothing which might be con-
strued to be adverse to this interpretation may not have been
overlooked. Also, if it please the Board, the company would
welcome a suggestion as to the best practical way to make the
change."

The union, in reply, submitted the following brief:

" The company has applied to the Arbitration Board for the
right of introducing machines to press vests, heretofore pressed
by hand, also for the right to have these machines operated by
cheaper help.

" In the first question, the Union does not advance any objec-
tion, though do regret that a number of its members must be
displaced.

" To the second question the Union beg to submit to the
Arbitration Board the following:

" By the Trade Board agreement the right to make prices
was given to the Trade Board with the following restrictions :
' Change of prices must correspond to the change of work and
new prices must be based upon old prices where possible.'

" Since this has been in effect, many sections were changed
from hand work to machine, and in no case has the company
claimed that work done by machine should be done by less expen-
sive help. Instead, their representative on the Price Commit-
tee, together with the representative of the Union, have always
agreed that work transferred from hand to machine should
enable the machine operator to earn at least as much as the
hand worker used to earn. Furthermore, it was always agreed
between these representatives that the people displaced by intro-
duction of machinery ought to get the first opportunity to oper-
ate these machines, and this has been the practice in many
cases. * * *

" The introduction of the machines for pressing vests does
not abolish any vest pressing, but merely changes the pressing
from hand to machine. Consequently, the power of the Board
is restricted by the clause of the agreement which I repeat:
* Change of prices must correspond to the change of work and
new prices must be based upon old prices where possible.'

" Inasmuch as in this case it is not only possible, but it is
very evident, that old prices, being yet in operation, can be used

PROTECTING WORKING CONDITIONS 293

to fix a new price for the pressing of vests by machine, — the
Board's attention is called to the importance of this case, which
imperils the life of the Union and the Agreement itself."

The ruling of the Board of Arbitration in response to the
company's, petition was a majority decision, signed by Chair-
man Williams and Mr. W. O. Thompson, for the union.
Mr. Cresap, for the company, wrote a dissenting opinion.
The Board decided that:

" It does not agree with the interpretation of the agreement
proposed by the deputy of the company, as a whole.

" It agrees that there is nothing in the agreement which pre-
vents the introduction of machinery for the purpose of saving
labor and increasing efficiency even though its introduction may
reduce and displace the hand workers usually employed in the
affected section. But in fixing the scale of wages for the opera-
tion of such machinery, the Board believes the company is
restrained by the agreement, and by the precedents and prac-
tices hitherto obtaining, from reducing the earnings of the work-
ers employed in the section.

" The company contends that the change of work caused by
the introduction of this machinery is so great as to constitute
a new section, and that the substitution proposed would vir-
tually amount to an abolition of the old section. The Board
is unable to coincide with this view, but holds instead that, in
substance, the continuity of the section would be unimpaired,
the same work would be performed, the same points in quality
of pressing must be safeguarded, and that the principal differ-
ence would be in the speed with which the operation is performed.
Thus believing, the, Board holds that the proposed change is
a change mainly in the instruments of pressing, and does not
amount to the creation of a new trade, or such an alteration in
the conditions of vest pressing as to justify the claim of an
abolition of section.

" The decision of the Board is that in the event the company
introduces the vest pressing machinery, as suggested, the prices
for operating the same shall be fixed by the price committee,
upon the same principles and basis as are regularly used by them
in making all changes in price under the agreement, and which
are specified in the section hereinbefore quoted."

Almost five years after this decision had been rendered,
the issue then disposed of arose again in a somewhat modi-
fied form and with the emphasis on the claim of the particu-
lar section to the work under the changed conditions of op-

294 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

eration. In this case,102 the question was whether the shop
trimmers or a joker sewer should man a stamping machine
which would place in the hands of the operator parts of the
work heretofore done by both of these on shady lots. There
was also involved the question as to whether the price should
be based upon the earnings of the trimmers or upon those
of the joker sewer. The Trade Board, after hearing the case,
had found that a machine was being substituted for hand-
work in the trimming section and " in line with the ruling
of the Board of Arbitration in the case of the vest pressing
machines," had ruled that work on the new machine should
" be assigned to the trimming section."

In submitting the decision of the Board of Arbitration in
this case, Chairman Millis ruled as follows:

"The case here presented is similar to the vest pressing
machine case. The principle there laid down by '* majority
decision ' has been consistently followed for several years and
has proved its worth. It should be applied properly in the
present case. The only material difference between it and the
vest pressing machine case lies in the fact that in the one the
interests of two sections are involved while in the other the ques-
tion was as to whether the company might employ new and
cheaper help on the machine or must employ the workers there
engaged in hand pressing, and fix prices which would conserve
their earnings. In the case before the Board the company
wishes to man the machine by a joker sewer at a price based
upon the earnings from that occupation, (some $40 a week).
The union, on the other hand, wants it manned by a trimmer
at a price based upon trimmer's earnings, (approaching $50
per week).

" The Board is of the opinion that the matter should be dis-
posed of with some reference to the nature of the machine opera-
tion, but with chief reference to the relative importance of the
claims of the two sections, part of whose work is to be done or
eliminated by the machine.

"In certain respects a joker sewer would be best fitted im-
mediately to operate the machine, but its operation would
involve the heavier responsibilities borne by the trimmers and
not by the joker sewer.

" It appears that nearly all of the work to be done or elimi-
nated by the machine has until recently been done by trimmers
* * * It would appear from the estimates given by the company
and the payroll that about three-fourths of the whole here in-

PROTECTING WORKING CONDITIONS 295

volved has been done by trimmers, about one-fourth by joker
sewer * * *

" Considering the responsibility connected with the opera-
tion, the prior claim of the trimmers, and the fact that even
recently most of the work involved has been done by the trim-
mers, it is held that the trimmer should be placed upon the
machine and a price made which, with efficient operation, will
yield trimmer's earnings.

" This decision does not give the company the greatest imme-
diate gain from the new machine. The chairman is of the opin-
ion, however, that the company's interests are best served in the
long run by avoiding the development of opposition to
machinery and new methods."

Whenever a technical improvement is proposed or intro-
duced by the employer, the immediate effect on the worker "~
is to put him in a defensive attitude of mind. The worker's
experience has taught him that he has interests at stake in
every change affecting his work, and that those interests,
being in general opposed to the immediate interests of the
employer, can only be properly defended by himself or his
organization. Where the anticipated harmful consequences
of the innovation relate not to present displacement or wage
reduction but to an eventual depreciation of craft skill or
deterioration of bargaining power of the worker, such con-
sequences are both harder to prove and to insure against.
The resulting tendency on the worker's part is to resist out-
right the innovation, not trusting to promises as a guarantee
against possible injury to his interests in future. Under
these conditions resort to direct action is not out of the ques-
tion, as happened in the case of the cutters in a certain
house.101 These being ordered in an emergency to lay up
different fabrics were so imbued with the fear of the ulti-
mate hurtful effect of the change on unemployment of cut-
ters, that they engaged, first, in a prolonged stoppage and,
later, in deliberate restriction of output. As a rule, however,
the discipline of the union together with the union's concern
with the permanent interests of its members suffices to safe-
guard these interests through the regular legal procedure.

Technical changes in work are usually introduced by the -
management in the interest of greater efficiency in produc-

296 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

tion. They may involve, on the other hand, disadvantage
or loss to workers that offsets their advantage to the em-
ployer. Both interests being legitimate, it devolves upon
the impartial chairman to attempt to reconcile them or, fail-
ing that, to determine which of the two is the more vital in
the given situation. This issue is illustrated in the following
case.104 The repair man in the trimming room had been given
the additional work of sharpening the knives of the machine
operators. The union objected on the ground that it took
work away from union men and gave it to a non-union man.
The Trade Board sustained the contention of the union.

The company appealed from the decision on the ground
that the matter was not so much a question of preference
to the union as it was a question of the company's right to
install more efficient methods in the trimming room. The
union rejoined that it did not object to improved methods
but wanted them brought about without injury to the
workers. In this case it held that the trimmers would be
seriously harmed by not being permitted to sharpen their
own knives, that knife sharpening was an essential part of
the trimmer's trade, that if he did not know and practice it
he would not be able to work in other houses than Hart,
Schaffner and Marx, and so would be heavily handicapped
in earning his livelihood.

In deciding this issue, Mr. Williams recorded his opinion
as follows:

" The chairman feels strongly that the company should be
supported in its efforts to improve the methods and has no
sympathy with the anti-improvement attitude which has charac-
terized some of the trade unions in the past, yet he believes that
changes when made should not be at the expense of the worker
where it is possible to avoid it. In the present case, he does not
feel that the amount of work or saving involved is important
enough to make it a test case of the efficiency principle, or
that the nice balancing of the factors of efficiency of work and
injury to worker really requires to be subjected to the test of
adjudication in this doubtful instance * * *

" The chairman is inclined to give the workers the benefit
of the doubt in a case where serious crippling of earning power
is claimed, and where the effect on the company is not important,
and he therefore is willing to confirm that part of the Trade

PROTECTING WORKING CONDITIONS 297

Board decision which reads as follows : * The work, accord-
ingly, is ordered to be restored to its former condition.'

" But this decision should not be understood to imply that
the chairman is not in thorough sympathy with the legitimate
attempts of the company to improve its processes * * * "

As in the case of substituting a machine for a hand process,
so in changing one machine for another, the employer is
bound to conserve the interests of the workers affected. If,
for example, the new machine is more difficult to operate
than the old, application must be madei to the price committee
for an adjustment of the piece rate, so that the operator's
earnings shall be maintained. The fact that the new machine
is more efficient than the old one and enables the operator
with the same effort to turn out a greater number of gar-
ments, does not in itself entitle him to increased compen-
sation. The gain in efficiency under present conditions
accrues primarily to the employer, except insofar as the
bargaining strength of the union may secure a share of the
gain for the worker through fixing an advantageous piece
rate for his changed operation. The question of risk, on the
other hand, like that of effort, enters directly into the cal-
culation of piece rates and earnings. The greater care de-
manded and strain on the worker's attention involved in
operating a dangerous machine must in fairness be offset
by an increase in rate, if only on the theory that his effort
is increased or the time per unit of output necessarily
lengthened. This point gets negative illustration in the case
of a trimmer105 who refused to use a certain cutting machine
unless he were paid a higher wage, and who had caused
another operator to refuse to work it. The chairman of the
Trade Board, after hearing the facts, held that the machine
in question involved no more risks than other cutting ma-
chines, and that the firm was therefore within its rights in
assigning the trimmer to operate the machine without in-
crease in pay.

Even as between the worker's accustomed machine and
another of exactly the same kind, the substitution of one
for the other may eniail for him a real point of grievance.
The change may merely upset temporarily and in slight de-

298 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

gree the worker's habits of adjustment to his machine; but
to this extent it affects his earnings unfavorably, and must
somehow be compensated. The problem is clearly pre-
sented in a Trade Board case106 growing out of the combin-
ing of two shops by the firm during a slack period, and the
proposed part-time employment of both groups of workers
on one set of machines. The workers transferred from the
abandoned shop objected on the ground that their accus-
tomed machines should be transferred with them to the other
shop. In adjusting the dispute, Chairman Mullenbach gave
weight to the following considerations:

" The Trade Board is impressed with an observation that has
been frequently noted in the shops. One may say it is customary
for a machine operator to wait while his machine is being re-
paired by the machinist, though usually extra machines are
available. Taken in connection with the fact that the operator
is a piece worker and anxious to employ his time, this refusal
or objection to using the special machine must count in favor
of the people's contention. Machines have habits the same as
the workers have who operate them, and these habits have to be
learned.

" To sum up, the union bases its contention for an adequate
supply of machines, one for each individual worker, on the
usage that has hitherto prevailed under the agreement ; and on
the disadvantage of using a strange machine. The union does
not object to consolidation of the shops but argues that their
people should not suffer and each should have the guarantee
that he is not surplus labor but has his recognized place in the
shop. The company objects to installing the equipment chiefly
on account of the expense, and argues that the reduction of
expense in every possible way is necessary in order to meet the
need of low cost of production.

" Previous rulings by the Board of Arbitration on merging
shops, introducing improved processes, etc., have indicated that
the Board has had in mind that the company was to be aided
in its effort for more efficient methods, but that such changes
should not be made at the expense of the workers or at least the
injury ought to be minimized as much as possible."

The chairman of the Trade Board, accordingly, ordered
an estimate to be submitted of the expense involved in hav-
ing the machines removed from the old shop to the new, as
an intermediate step to a final decision.

in

S c

b =3

«* ' C

^ Ja
x3

o

03 X
C <D
£ S

c
o

1/3

^2
O
O
s3

^

O

rt

CO

u

s « I

S -S b

§ S v5

"i2 *

S ^

2 o
^ §

^ .2
c S

03

S
o

H

^5

i O>

Ou

_e - -C
" r" ^ ^3

C^^^

'1|
CO "p
^ <D

«l - a

~ %£ g

X n. t*^ PH

i; 57 03 a;

o ^ EH *

«X I— H t»

^ O O

c
o

u

o

-S 3 C

PH.S
U

Hq^Qs

O Sj

w ^

m
of m

VtlttftSIVf er IkklKOfl

CHAPTER XIII

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES

THE problem of wages and the method of payment is one
that constantly touches every wage-earner, whether employed
by the piece or by the week. The story of the rise of the
general wage level and of the great wage arbitrations in the
Chicago clothing industry since the entry of the union in the
market has already been told. In the present chapter it is
proposed to direct attention to the broad principles of pro-
cedure and of justice governing the establishment of wage
rates and their adjustment. Insofar as these principles have
been evolved out of the operation of the agreement and the
impartial machinery, they form part of the established law
of the industry. Instead of wages being left to the arbi-
trary determination of the employer, at least in the interval
between the making of the collective wage contract and its
expiration, these laws and principles control the actions of
the employer in every detail of his wage relations to the
worker. They impose certain obligations upon the employer
which spell rights for the worker and the union. From the
standpoint of growth in union control, the development of
law and justice in this field of industrial relations is even
more important than any specific gains in the wage rate
itself.

THE MAKING OF PIECE-WORK RATES

We are not here called upon to raise the ultimate question
as to the justice of the wage system itself, or even as to what
constitutes a " fair wage " in the abstract. It is sufficient for
our present purpose if we succeed in finding through a study
of the decisions the evolution of certain general principles,
whose application secures to the workers such a measure of
practical justice as the existing state of industrial organiza-

300 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

tion permits. The outstanding feature of the wage system
as found in the Chicago tailor shops before the 1910 strike,
was not so much the generally low level of the workers'
earnings as it was the exploitation of those workers through
the abuse of the piece-work system of payment.

Piece work has for many years been the prevailing basis
of payment in the tailoring operations. While the power of
fixing and altering piece-work rates remained unregulated
in the hands of foremen, the workers were exposed to all
the evils of sub-contracting, speeding, rate-cutting, unfair
competition, unfair discrimination, and the like. After the
strike, the firm of Hart, S chaff ner and Marx instituted a
system of written specifications and prices for all operations.
Although this standardization resulted in an immediate low-
ering of earnings for many workers because of increased
requirements as to quality, it represented a long step in the
direction of a constitutional procedure in the making and
adjustment of piece-work rates.

The basis of piece-work rates in the market today are
schedules of prices and specifications for all the piece-work
operations in each house. The schedules were arrived at in
the first place through joint negotiation with the respective
houses and made part of the agreement for each house. Since
the work of a section in the industry differs more or less
widely between shops and from one season to another, the
specifications and the prices necessarily vary considerably
and often. To meet this necessity and to insure fair prices to
piece workers at all times, a joint machinery has grown up
under the agreement in the form of a piece-rate committee.
The Hart, Schaffner and Marx agreement provides:
" Whenever a change of piece rate is contemplated the mat-
ter shall be referred to a specially appointed rate commit-
tee who shall fix the rate according to the change of work.
If the committee disagree the Trade Board shall fix the
rate." According to the Trade Board chairman, " as a
matter of practice, the work of rate making is carried on
almost exclusively by the two members representing the com-
pany and the people. While some cases are brought before the

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 301

full committee, these cases are exceptional when compared
to the number settled by the two members."

In the case of each of the larger houses in the market a
special union deputy is assigned as price expert, and he acts
as the people's representative on the rate committee for that
house. In case of inability to agree, this deputy reports to
his chief price deputy who, in turn, is the union's representa-
tive on the market rate committee. ' Whenever a question
of piece-work rate arises, it is taken up in the first instance
by the two members of the committee and an attempt is
made to reach an agreement. If an agreement is reached,
a specification of the work to be performed and the rate to
be paid is prepared and signed by both representatives with-
out any further action. If, however, the two parties are
unable to reach an agreement, the case is taken up with the
full committee and an agreement reached, or a decision made
fixing the rate and specification. If this decision is unsat-
isfactory to either party, the decision may be appealed to
the Board of Arbitration."

Changes in specifications are proposed, whenever neces-
sary, by the company, being a primary concern of manage-
ment. But since they concern directly the worker engaged
on the operation and may easily affect his earning power,
every such change before becoming effective is a matter for
joint negotiation, agreement and record by both parties. In
the course of an early arbitration decision107 bearing on this
matter. Chairman Williams ruled as follows:

" In order that disputes about specifications shall be mini-
mized, the union shall be provided with a copy of all specifica-
tions, for the exclusive use of its member of the price commit-
tee. He shall make proper examination of such specifications,
and if he objects to any on account of undue age, irregularity
or other reason, he shall give notice of same, and endeavor at
once to arrive at an adjustment and agreement. In case no
such notice is served within a reasonable time, all such specifica-
tions shall be deemed regular and in force. If there be a serious
lapse of standard by the workers below the specifications, the
union shall be notified and shall co-operate with the company
in restoring the standard of the specification."

302 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

Changes in rates, on the other hand, are entirely a matter
of collective adjustment. They cannot be instituted, even
provisionally, by act of the management. They do not be-
come effective until they have first gone to the Price Com-
mittee and been adjusted there on the basis of the changed
conditions.

When the Trade Board is called upon to fix a rate re-
garding which there is a disagreement, the chairman of the
Board endeavors first of all to bring the parties closer to-
gether on the basis of the agreed facts. If he is successful
in leading them to agree on a rate, he then merely gives offi-
cial sanction to it. Otherwise, he may, as an alternative to
fixing the rate himself on the spot, recommend a temporary
rate to be applied experimentally and subject to revision.
Or he may refer it back to the rate committee for further
investigation or observation, or for elaboration as to detail.
Thus, in one instance,108 where the price committee had been
unable to agree on certain rates, the union requested the
Trade Board to investigate and decide. The Trade Board
made a ruling with respect only to basic rates for the opera-
tions in question, and instructed the price committee to work
out necessary differentials, thereby narrowing the field of
possible controversy.

When the case of a disputed rate goes to the Trade Board,
it is sometimes necessary for the Chairman to make a per-
sonal investigation before he can reach a satisfactory decision.
The investigation, however, extends merely to the facts in the
case. In deciding upon what is a fair price for a particular
operation, the impartial chairman is not expected to de-
termine questions of ultimate justice. He is guided by a
provision in the agreement which reads : " In fixing the
rates, the Board is restricted to the following rule : changed
rates must correspond to the changed work and new rates
must be based upon old rates where possible." Where this
is not possible, existing market rates may become the cri-
terion of fairness. In other words, usage and antecedent
collective bargaining or arbitration decisions provide the
point of departure from which the Trade Board proceeds.

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 808

It has no power under the agreement to revise or alter this
basis.

The setting of piece rates for new work consequently in-
volves various questions of fact, and for this reason it is
necessary for those who are charged with that function to be
thoroughly familiar with the character of the work and the
conditions under which it is and has been performed in the
particular shop. It is also necessary that adequate records
be kept of the various operations and of the rates paid for
each.

With the multiplicity of operations and of variations in
them, it sometimes happens that detailed specifications and
differential prices are not a matter of written record, but
merely of custom or informal understanding. Whenever a
change in the work or the rate is alleged by either side, the
first question, obviously, is as to the facts. In one such case
before the Trade Board,109 the union complained that the
firm had reduced the brushing rate on Palm Beaches with-
out the consent of the union and requested the restoration of
former rates. The firm contended that it had always paid
the lower rate for Palm Beach coats and that the higher
had been paid only for half and quarter lined coats. The
Trade Board found that " the case turns on the facts, which
the firm feels can be checked up by an analysis of payroll
and production records." The Board directed that this be
done, promising to review the case if it were not disposed
of by such an analysis.

Regular procedure demands that nothing shall be left
indeterminate in the definition of piece work operations
and prices. For only by having them duly written out and
signed and authorized by both parties can the possibility of
arbitrary action later be avoided. Disputes over rates hinge
largely on conflicting interpretations in applying prices and
specifications. In one case110 where the union complained
that the firm had reduced the rate on pressing pockets on
certain models which the firm claimed were not included in
the original rate, there was no written schedule to show
whose claim was correct. The payroll evidence, however,

304 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

indicated that the usage of the previous year justified the
firm. While the Board, accordingly, denied the request of
the union, it took occasion to point out that " any correction
in rates and specifications, however obvious, should be a mat-
ter of formal record with the firm and the deputy, so that
questions of this sort need not arise." And on another occa-
sion111 the Board declared: 'When rates are adjusted by
negotiation there is no good reason why they should not be
made a matter of record and be signed by the representatives
of both sides."

Once the specifications and prices are fixed by agreement
between the firm and the union, they are legally binding on
the workers and the foreman in the shop. The power of
changing them rests, under the agreement, with the original
parties, or at their instance, with the Trade Board. In the
words of the agreement: "After the specification and rate
have been authorized by the Rate Committee, there can be
no alteration of the terms either by the company or the
people without permission from the Rate Committee." The
logic of this procedure may be illustrated by a case112 of
collusion between a section head and the pocket makers on
a1 temporary arrangement whereby work was decreased with-
out a corresponding decrease in the rate and without the
attention of the foreman and the production manager being
called to the arrangement. The firm petitioned the Trade
Board to declare the change invalid and to restore the es-
tablished rate. The Trade Board, directing the restoration
of previous specifications and rates, declared : " The workers
benefited by the arrangement during a period of several
months, and while the Board must disapprove of changes
in specifications and rates except by joint action of those
authorized to make such changes, it does not appear that
anything more than a temporary arrangement was contem-
plated or that the pocket makers can contend justly for its
continuance indefinitely. The section head is reprimanded
for his action, however innocent his intent * * *."

A case113 in which the workers themselves decreased their
work in disregard of the specifications and without a corre-

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 305

spending adjustment of the price is that of certain edge
stitchers, whose rates had been established by agreement.
For stitching all around the rate was six cents ; for breaking
off it was seven cents. The workers subsequently found the
latter rate was more favorable, and upon their complaint the
foreman ordered them to break off on all edge stitching and
he would pay the rate of seven cents. Instead of this the
workers went ahead as previously, stitching all around in
some cases and breaking off in others, according to conveni-
ence, but they were paid a uniform rate of seven cents, until
the firm discovered the practice. The Trade Board sup-
ported the firm in putting a stop to it, holding that " the
rates of six and seven cents for edge stitching were estab-
lished in regular order," and that it does not follow that the
seven-cent rate is to be applied to work for which a six-cent
rate is established merely because the workers saw fit to do
the work other than directed and got by with it for a time
* * *. The Board holds, therefore, that the seven-cent rate
ie to apply when the stitching is broken off, but is not to
apply to stitching all around. If the rate for stitching all
around can be shown to be too low; that it was not estab-
lished regularly or with a full knowledge of the facts in the
case, or that it is a temporary rate the earning power of
which has been found to be inadequate, the Board will review
the situation on that basis."

The same problem arose in a modified form114 in another
shop of the same firm. Here the foreman permitted the edge
stitchers to stitch all around, yet paid the rate for breaking
off. This was done for a year or more and the firm accepted
the work. " Now the firm is insisting that the edge stitchers
break off and accept the established rate. The workers quite
naturally insist that having been permitted to stitch all
around for so long a time they should not be asked at this
time to do more work for the same price * * *. The ignor-
ing of specifications by foremen or making specifications to
suit their convenience is occurring with regrettable fre-
quency. It is a holdover, perhaps, from the days when speci-
fications and rates were not a matter of agreement and

306 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

record, but it can have no place under the present arrange-
ment. In this case if the foreman acted on his own authority
he robbed the firm of a quality of work to which it was en-
titled and for which it had paid. If specifications are to
have any significance they must be observed strictly and fore-
men who do not observe them are a liability to the firm. The
Trade Board has no other recourse in this case but to rule
that the firm must accept the consequences of the poor judg-
ment exercised by its foreman * * *."

In the case just cited the time element plays a significant
part. The fact that a year had passed without any action
by the firm in repudiation of the arrangement improperly
entered into by the foreman gave a presumption of right to
the workers' claim for its continuance. Through the pass-
age of time a usage had become established and a correspond-
ing expectation set up in the minds of the workers that the
firm's apparent acquiescence was consent. Long usage or
custom, whatever its manner of origin, acquires the force of
agreement. As such it may supersede earlier agreement and
can only be set aside, in turn, by subsequent agreement be-
tween the parties. On this principle, a specification or a rate
that is not enforced over a considerable period of time lapses
by disuse and the actual practice becomes the rule or law.
Thus in one decision115 the Trade Board held that " a dis-
puted rate becomes obsolete if not used or if the operation
is changed to avoid the dispute." And in another case11'
the union requested the Trade Board to fix a rate for top
seam pressers in a certain house on the ground that addi-
tional work had been given to them in the form of shrinking
fronts. The firm claimed that this operation was properly
a part of their work, though no written specifications for it
existed. The Trade Board concluded " that whether they
were supposed to do it or not, the top seam pressers have
not been shrinking fronts. It may be inferred that they were
not shrinking fronts when the rates were passed on by the
leveling commission. In the absence of specifications and on
the evidence presented, the Trade Board rules that this is

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 307

additional work and refers the matter to the price committee
to fix appropriate rates."

When the Trade Board undertakes the adjustment of dis-
puted rates, where an operation has been changed, it may
employ several methods for determining the extent of ad-
justment called for in the particular situation. It may make
direct comparative observations of the old operation and the
new and thus estimate the relative degree of difficulty of
the one over the other. Or it may proceed by means of time
studies of the operation in question, these to be conducted by
the firm and the union either jointly or independently. In
either case the " changed rates must correspond to the
changed work." To illustrate:117 the union complains that
the edge and shape presser has been given additional work
and requests that his piece rate be adjusted with back pay.
The rate for edge and shape pressing has been 5.74s. Re-
cently the firm has changed from hand to machine collars.
It is admitted that the shape pressing is now more difficult.
' The Trade Board has observed the operation in question
and feels that a rate of 6.50 for edge and shape pressing
machine-made collars is fair. This rate is to be retroactive
to the change from hand to machine."

The method of time study as a measure of the change in
work is exemplified in a case118 where the firm requested the
Trade Board to set a differential rate on pressing inseam
flat at the crotch, which work was added to the regular seam
pressing. The rate without the added operation was 4.14.
The results of three-time tests were submitted at the hear-
ing. The Board directed that further tests be made, as the
union and the firm had been unable to agree on the tests
and had made separate reports. The Trade Board set a
rate of 4.55 for seam pressing to include the added operation,
the differential representing " about the relationship of the
new work to the old ".

THE MAINTENANCE OF EARNINGS

The principle underlying and governing all these adjust-
ments of piece rates is the maintenance of hourly earnings

308 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

of the workers concerned. The theory is that a worker is
entitled to his customary earnings as long as he is occupied
at his own work or at work requiring an equal degree of
skill or effort. If the necessary degree of skill or effort is
raised by a change in the required quality of his work or
its intensity or in the method of performing it, so that he
can only turn out fewer garments per day than he produced
before, the piece rate for his operation must be correspond-
ingly increased so as to yield him the same earnings per
hour as he previously received. The converse proposition,
in general, also holds. The principle of maintenance of
earnings presupposes, in practice, that there is enough work
in the shop to keep the worker fully occupied at his own
operation. It becomes inapplicable when work is slack, i.e.,
when he must wait for work. For in that situation his
earnings, depending as they do on output, diminish in the
same ratio as his total production declines.

The worker is entitled to maintain his earnings as against
changes in his work initiated by and on behalf of manage-
ment. But he cannot make the same claim as against a loss
due to irregular employment in slack season — a loss in which
management also shares and for which it is not wilfully
responsible. On one occasion1 1? the union requested the
Trade Board to readjust certain rates on the ground that
there had been a reduction of earnings of the workers in
question. The Trade Board found that the rates compared
favorably with market rates, but that the chief trouble was
lack of work. " In part at least this is a result of general
market conditions from which many workers have suffered.
As a general rule, the Trade Board will not revise rates
passed on by the leveling commission unless it can be shown
that the operation has been changed." This being not the
case in the present instance, the Board denied the union's
request.

At a time of lack of work in the shop the union may
object to a change in rates corresponding to a change
in specifications that would leave a man with still less work
to do and therefore with earnings still further curtailed.

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 309

This was the situation in a case120 where a firm complained
to the Trade Board that the union refused to reduce the
piece rate on collar shape pressing in keeping with the re-
duced work on the operation. The union did not deny the
subtraction of work but contended that because of scarcity
of work a reduction in rate would work an injustice to the
collar shape presser, whose earnings would be reduced in
the same proportion. The firm then proposed to give him
other work to compensate him for the reduction, without
entailing any loss in earnings for any other worker. To
this the union agreed and proceeded jointly with the firm
to readjust the collar shape pressing rate to conform to the
change in operation.

A change in specifications may consist in a change in the
proportion of garments or of materials of certain kinds that
are handled by a worker in the daily course of his work.
If his operation on one model, for; instance, is more difficult
or time-consuming than on another, and the proportion of
the former model in the total number of garments is mate-
rially increased, this will constitute ground for a revision
of rates upward, so as to maintain earnings. Even where
the model is not more difficult but its more frequent occur-
rence brings to light an inferior earning power of the rate
originally agreed upon for it, this basic rate may itself be
reconsidered. A certain firm121 had a rate of 19.35 for regu-
lar pockets, with a differential of 9.09 for turned pockets
including stitching. Only a few turned pockets had been
made in the past. The firm now proposed to make practi-
cally all of its pockets turned. The extra stitching was to be
given to a week worker and the firm petitioned the Trade
Board to fix a rate that should not include the extra stitch-
ing. The Trade Board found that there had been no way
of testing the adequacy of the differential for turned pockets,
because very few had been made. But " with all pockets
made turned, it should be possible to determine what work
is necessary to maintain earnings * * *. Tests made thus
far indicate that the differential of 9.09, exclusive of extra
stitching, is not too high if all the pockets are to be made

310 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

turned." And the Board directed this differential to remain
in effect for the reduced operation " subject to later review
if necessary."

A change in a worker's operation may amount to a trans-
fer of work or the substitution of one operation for another.
This happens when the worker is shifted from one type of
garment to another, as, for example, from sack coat to over-
coat ; or vice-versa. In such a case the new work may differ
so markedly from the old as to make it difficult to base the
new rates upon the old. If there is no established rate for
the new work the worker may be temporarily placed on an
hour work basis, while the piece rate for the new operation
is being determined by the price committee. The considera-
tions by which the committee is guided in their determination
are those (1) of the worker's previous earnings, (2) of his
performance on hour work or under time tests, and (3) of
the prevailing rate paid for similar work in the market. A
firm complained to the Trade Board122 that it had failed to
reach an agreement with the union covering trimming on
ready-made overcoats. The Board found that the main dif-
ficulty lay in reaching an agreement as to the basis for de-
termining rates in this case. Earlier in the season rates had
been adjusted to cover trimming on ready-made sack coats.
The Board ruled that " the rates for overcoats should be
fixed at a figure that would enable the workers to maintain
previous earnings " on sack coats, and directed an adjust-
ment on that basis.

Any piece rate adjustment by calculation in advance,
whether by estimating differentials in work or measuring
them by time study or computing them from output on hour
work or by comparison with market rates is liable to appreci-
able error. Whichever method is used in arriving at the new
rate must be supplemented by actual experiment and obser-
vation. The new rate must be tested in the light of its actual
earning power to determine whether it is a " fair rate." For
this reason when rates are set by the price committee, OP
even by the Trade Board, they are not final. In the language
of the agreement: " New rates are always provisional^ and

311

temporary and are subject to review after sufficient period
of trial to determine their merit. The Committee seeks to
make the temporary rate as nearly equitable as possible, both
for its effect on the people and to save a repetition of the
negotiation." But this is not always possible, and the mat-
ter goes to the Trade Board for review. A case in point123
is one where the firm petitioned the Trade Board for a re-
vision of the temporary rate for stitching French facings.
The union admitted the right of the firm to request a revision
of a temporary rate, but contended that a comparative time
test should be made of the operation on the two models : the
old and the new. The Trade Board directed that such a test
be made jointly. The results of the tests were unfavorable
to the workers and inconclusive. The Trade Board held
that " time tests, covering, necessarily, a limited amount of
work, should not be the sole criterion of what is a fair rate."
The rate was then adjusted in the light of former hour earn-
ings of these workers.

In another case124 the Trade Board had reduced the rate
for off-pressing from 4.59 to 4.24 because of a change in
operation. When the new rate was put into effect by the
firm, the earnings of the off-pressers fell below their previous
level, and the union complained to the Board. The union
contended that the rate established by the Trade Board was
intended to maintain earnings ; that earnings were not main-
tained, thus demonstrating that the change in operation did
not reduce the time required in the degree contemplated
by the Trade Board, and that reconsideration of the rate
was necessary. The Trade Board directed that hourly
earnings of off-pressers be computed for comparable periods
for two successive years, and with these figures of earnings
as a basis referred the matter of adjusting the rate to the
Price Committee.

In order that no injustice shall be done to workers who ac-
cept a temporary rate that later proves to be too low, the
Trade Board125 has held that such workers are entitled to
back pay for the difference between the temporary rate and
the revised permanent rate. This guarantee also makes for

312 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

better shop discipline, inasmuch as it reduces the friction at-
tending the introduction of a new rate.

When an operation or a method of work is materially
changed at the instance of the firm, so as temporarily to
impair the efficiency of the workers concerned, without neces-
sarily altering the amount of work required of them, they are
entitled to be placed on an hour work basis. They remain
on hour work only long enough to gain the necessary fa-
miliarity with the changed operation. After that they return
to piece work, either at their former rate or at a new rate
agreed upon on the basis of a change in the work. On this
point the agreement provides that " in the event a piece
worker is required to change his mode of operation so that it
causes him to lose time in learning, his case may be brought
to the Rate Committee for its disposition." In one such in-
stance126 a man had refused to continue working at his cus-
tomary piece rate after the character of his work had been
changed. The firm discharged him. At the hearing he con-
tended that the work should have been done on an hour basis
instead of by the piece. The Trade Board upheld him and
ordered his reinstatement with pay for time lost.

In another case127 the union complained that the company
was requiring certain piecers to do their work in a new way,
and the change was resulting in loss of earnings. The work-
ers claimed that the new method had seriously hindered their
speed and asked for a period of hour work in order to get
acquainted with the new method of handling. The Trade
Board observed the work and found that " there does not
seem to be any vital difference in the amount of work, simply
a rearrangement of the handling. In the opinion of the Trade
Board the people should be given two weeks of hour work to
gain facility in the new method." In keeping with this prin-
ciple, also, is the Board's decision in another case.128 The
Board there ruled that a worker transferred to another shop
was entitled to hour work for the time needed to acquire ordi-
nary acquaintance with the work, to the same extent as were
the workers originally in the shop when the new operation
was introduced.

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 813

The principle, stated in general terms, is that workers are
not to suffer in their earnings when their output is tempo-
rarily reduced in consequence of an act of the management.
Thus stated, the principle applies not merely to piece workers
on hour rates, but also to week workers with standards of
production, as illustrated in the following case:129 The
firm in this instance had introduced a new method of off-
pressing and a new quota for the pressers. The section was
divided into three squads of twelve men who were given
special training in the new method while being paid on an
hour basis. But while the first squad was retained under in-
struction for three weeks, the others were given only one
week, with a consequent loss in their quota of work and their
earnings during two weeks following their return to piece
work. The Trade Board held that since " the innovation was
at the instance of the company, * * * any loss attending
the inauguration of the new system should be borne by the
company, unless it can be shown that the off-pressers are
responsible for the reduced production. That has not been
shown in this case and the Trade Board directs that the losses
for these two weeks for the off-pressers shall be paid."

The determination of hourly rates for piece workers who
are temporarily on an hour basis, is provided for in the agree-
ment as follows: " In case workers are changed from piece
to hour work, the hour rates for such piece workers shall be
based on their earnings on piece work." In this way the
workers' earnings are guaranteed pending their return to
piece work. The procedure to be followed in computing the
hourly rate of any piece worker was laid down in a decision130
by Mr. Williams in 1917. He ruled, in substance, that in
arriving at a basis for hour work, the company should take
the average of the piece work earnings of the individual con-
cerned during a period of four full weeks, and base his hour
work on such average piece work earnings. And, in con-
clusion, Mr. Williams stated: " The purpose is to base hour
work on full time piece work, and to avoid as far as possible,
including slack work periods of piece work on the hour work
rate."

814 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

It is customary for firms to re-figure hour rates from time
to time — in a few cases on their own initiative, more com-
monly at the request of the workers — in order that these rates
may reflect changes in the piece-work earnings of the
workers. For this reason it is all the more important that
they be based on full-time earnings, since otherwise they
would be too low. In one case131 the union complained that
the firm had not figured the hour rate properly in the case of
several workers and requested the Trade Board to inform
the firm of the proper way. The Board found that " the
difficulty in this case arose from slack work and the absence
of full-time employment over a sufficient period to test
properly the earning power of the piece rates in question."
The Trade Board accordingly suggested that an earlier
period be selected until such time as there may be full time
work again.

Not only are hour rates to be computed on the basis of a
normal flow of work, but, according to a Trade Board de-
cision,182 four weeks must be selected " when piece rates were
permanently fixed and when workers had had opportunity
to become thoroughly acquainted with the work."

The principle of guaranteed earnings for piece workers on
hour work is subject to the same qualifications as the hour
rate itself. They are both based on full-time employment.
Thus, when work becomes slack, the worker whose hour rate
has been computed on full-time piece-work earnings, is not
guaranteed against a reduction in his rate corresponding to
the reduction in his earning power at such a time. To illus-
trate : the union on one occasion138 complained that a canvas
baster employed by the firm was not making the earnings
guaranteed by the Trade Board, and requested that a proper
rate be set for the operation. In a previous decision, when
the worker in question had been transferred from hand to
machine work, the Trade Board had ruled that his new piece
rate must be such as to protect his previous earnings, namely,
$1 per hour. The case turned, therefore, on an interpreta-
tion of that earlier decision, particularly as to whether it was
intended to guarantee earnings irrespective of the amount

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 315

of work going through the shop. The chairman ruled that
" the stipulated earnings of $1 per hour was what the worker
should earn on full-time work and that it was not intended
to guarantee those earnings when work was slack. * * *
Hourly rates are based on full-time employment. It is not
contended that the rate in question would be inadequate un-
der conditions of full-time employment * * *." In view of
these and other facts the Board denied the request of the
union for a revision of the rate.

The status of a piece worker on an hourly basis differs
somewhat from that of a week worker. It differs in the first
place in that the piece worker is subject, as illustrated in the
case just cited, to periodic adjustments of his hour rate in
accordance with the flow of work in the shop and his own
piece-rate earning power. It differs, further, in being
merely temporary. "A piece worker134 with minimum guar-
antee is customarily employed on one kind of work in a
specific section, with limited duration of the guarantee till
the worker becomes acquainted with the particular piece
work operation. The whole arrangement in such a case looks
forward to permanent transfer to piece work, and the mini-
mum is maintained only as a temporary arrangement.'* In
a piece work market like Chicago the tendency is to put all
specialized workers on a piece basis as far as practicable.

The principle of maintenance of earnings applies no less
to workers transferred from a week work to a piece work
basis than it does to piece workers changed either tempo-
rarily or permanently to hour work. To illustrate: The
union in one case135 complained that F, employed previously
by the firm as a week worker, was now on piece work and
could not earn as much as on week work. Owing to the
many operations allotted to the worker, the union felt that
piece work rates were impracticable. The worker had re-
ceived $40 at week rates, making vents and yokes. He was
put on piece work when the shop reopened with the season.
His earnings for five weeks on piece work averaged only
$20.57 per week. The Trade Board directed that his earn-
ings be equalized during the time he had been on piece work,

316 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

on the basis of his previous weekly rates of $40, and that
he be limited to two operations, for a week or more, to de-
termine whether an adjustment of piece rates was practicable.

When such an adjustment is not practicable, that is to
say, when the transfer of the worker from week to piece
work entails for him a loss of earnings, the union has ground
for protesting against the transfer itself. This situation is
apt to arise if the transfer to piece work is made at a time
when there is lack of work in the shop, because at such a
time piece work earnings immediately reflect the slack. In
one such case136 the, union complained that two workers had
been changed from week work to piece work with loss of
earnings and requested their return to week work. In its
decision the Trade Board declared its belief " in a wide appli-
cation of the piece work system. It is of the opinion, how-
ever, that a change to it from week work should be made
when earnings can be maintained. To do otherwise is to
tend strongly to develop opposition to piece work * * *.
The Trade Board is of the opinion that the two workers
should be retained on week work for the limited time neces-
sary for the volume of work to become such that their for-
mer earnings can be maintained. It, therefore, grants "the
union's request."

The general principle that workers shall not suffer loss
in earnings by reason either of orders or of the fault of man-
agement, finds application in a variety of cases. For ex-
ample, it is customary for workers to bushel any of their
own work that is found defective by the examiner. If, how-
ever, the defect is not discovered and reported before the
work has gone through another section, thereby raising a
possible question as to the responsibility for the defect, the
worker charged with it may not be required to bushel the
work without additional compensation. Moreover, if a defect
in work is due to a previous defective operation on the gar-
ment that has been passed by the examiner, the burden of
busheling it may not be imposed on the worker who last
handled it. The management by virtue of passing the gar-
ment in the first place has assumed responsibility for its sub-

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 317

sequent defective condition. In a certain case187 turning
on this principle, the union requested pay for lost time for
G, an edge stitcher. The management had required this man
to bushel coats that on their own admission could not be
busheled, because the edge basting was bad. After hearing
the evidence the Trade Board expressed the opinion that
" work was being required of G that could not be reasonably
expected of him." It found that the basting was ripped on
one coat and removed on another. " Under such a con-
dition it is difficult to see what ground the management had
for insisting on the busheling. G's proposal to bushel the
coats after they had been re-basted would seem to be a fair
one and as much as could be expected. The management
seems to have acted inconsiderately." And the Trade Board
directed that G be paid for one hour loss of time, as the
refusal to give him work had no justification.

Loss of time to the worker through no fault of his own
occasionally results from a breakdown of machinery and a
failure on the part of the management to repair it promptly.
Such was the cause of complaint by the union in a case138
where some operators lost time on account of the neglect of
the firm to repair their machines properly. The union at
the conclusion of the hearing withdrew its claim for lost
time, but requested the Trade Board to direct the firm to
provide adequate machinist service thereafter. The Board,
accordingly, ruled that " the firm will see to it that machines
are repaired promptly and that if a machinist is not available
when needed, duplicate machines will be kept in repair. This
is as much to the interest of the firm as it is to the interest of
the workers * * *."

A clearer case of this sort139 involving fault of the manage-
ment is that of N, who lost time on account of the condition
of her machine and on whose behalf the union requested
compensation. The girl stated that she had been having
trouble with her machine and that she complained about it
to the foreman and manager before going on her vacation.
An examination of the payroll showed that in the week follow-
ing her return she earned $15.05, or at a rate of 60 cents an

318 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

hour, her regular hour rate being 89 cents. The Trade Board
expressed the belief that " the girl has suffered some loss on
account of the condition of the machine. For this week she
seems to have lost about 29 cents an hour for 24.85 hours,
or about $7.20. The Trade Board directs that she be paid
this amount as an offset for the condition of the machine
which prevented her from making her usual rate."

Another instance of loss of time by a piece worker caused
by a fault of management and therefore compensable, is the
following:140 The union accused a certain foreman of pulling
a coat away from P and preventing him from getting on
with his work. Because of this interruption the man claimed
he lost two coats of his quota and pay therefor was requested.
The evidence in the case was rather contradictory and the
Trade Board decided that a reasonable settlement would be
to allow P one coat on that day's quota.

One source of loss of time for the workers is that of wait-
ing for work in the shop. This is a condition frequently
beyond the power of management to control, and but rarely
due to bad faith or gross mismanagement. Where the latter
is shown to be the case, however, the Trade Board may
penalize the responsible official. The principle of compen-
sating the workers for loss of earnings has not found appli-
cation in these cases because of the risk of abuse involved in
such a practice. In a case of this type brought by the union
before the Trade Board.141 compensation was asked for a
certain section for time lost waiting in the shop. The union's
claim was based on the provision in the agreement (1916),
reading as follows :

" Detention in Shop. — Workers shall not be detained in the
shops when there is insufficient work for them. The company,
or its agent, shall exercise due foresight in calculating the work
available and as far as practicable shall call only enough work-
ers into the factory to do the work in sight. And if a greater
number report for work than there is work for, those in excess
of the number required shall be promptly notified and permitted
to leave the shop * * *."

In the case under consideration the Trade Board ruled in
favor of the people's petition. The firm appealed the case

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 319

and the chairman of the Board of Arbitration affirmed the
decision of the Trade Board insofar as it ruled about wait-
ing in the shop, but modified that decision as regards the
compensation it awarded to the workers: " With respect to
the penalty the chairman is of the opinion that it should oper-
ate to discipline the party found guilty of offense, rather
than as an attempt to compensate for the loss, and the award
of the Trade Board is altered to correspond with this view.
A fine of $20 is, therefore, assessed against Superintendent
S. as a disciplinary penalty, to be paid into a fund which
shall be held in trust by the company until a mutual agree-
ment shall be arrived at between union and company as to
the disposition of fine funds."

The question of paying workers for time spent waiting in
the shop came up squarely soon afterward,142 when the union
petitioned the Trade Board on behalf of certain welt makers
for pay for time thus lost by them. The Board ruled ad-
versely on the claim of the people. Appeal was taken to
the Board of Arbitration and Chairman Williams ruled, in
part, as follows:

" He realizes that it is a burden for people to have to wait for
work, but he is also quite clear that he ought not to invoke a
remedy rejected by the parties in interest unless the situation
is very desperate, and unless all other remedies have failed. He
must consider also whether the evil complained of is not inherent
in and inseparable from the business and one that cannot be
completely eradicated so long as the present interdependent
sectional system continues. The chairman invites the parties
hereto to make suggestions looking to the improvement of the
waiting evil. He is disinclined, however, to adopt the remedy
of paying for waiting until a plan is devised that will eliminate
the dangers and safeguard against its possible abuses."

Waiting in the shop is frequently bound up with the ir-
regular flow of work through the sections. Every interrup-
tion in this flow and every change in the proportion of work-
ers in the various sections tends to upset the balance in the
shop, to produce congestion at some points in the process
and waiting for work at others. One of the underlying prob-
lems, therefore, is that of balancing of sections as a condition

320 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

of regularizing the flow of work through the shop. In a
memorandum to the Hart, Schaffner and Marx agreement
of 1919 it was agreed " that the company shall undertake
experiments in controlling the flow of work for the purpose
of giving the maximum of work to piece workers and avoid
waste of time. The union promises to co-operate in the
balancing of sections upon which regularity of flow of work
depends."

Loss of time to the worker through having to wait for
work in the shop is not compensated, since it is always an
unintended result of factors that are usually beyond the
power of management to control or foresee. Where the
management is demonstrably at fault, however, it does not
escape the penalty of its failure to keep the work flowing.
This point has already been illustrated in the case of Superin-
tendent S, above. In a more recent Trade Board decision,143
the principle is set forth as follows : " Unless very definite
evidence can be furnished to prove gross negligence or bad
judgment on the part of the officials, no redress can be given
under the ruling of the Board of Arbitration. If a worker
has to wait because the foreman or manager has not used
reasonable care in supplying (him with work) the manager
may be fined, but there is no other redress." In other words,
as in the case of seasonal slackness so in other cases of lack
of work, the piece worker has no guarantee against loss of
earnings from idleness in the shop. On the other hand, such
idleness is kept at a minimum partly by the imposition of
fines on officials of the firm where it is shown to be prevent-
able or due to poor management.

WAGE STANDARDIZATION IN THE MARKET

In order that the earnings of workers of a given grade
in the market may be protected against deterioration from
any cause, it is necessary that standards be set up not only
within each house but for the market as a whole. For
workers change their employment from one house to another,
and any discrepancies in wage rates, whether of piece work-
ers or week workers, create competitive inequalities among

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 821

employers and dissatisfaction among workers. For this
reason the Board of Arbitration is given power under the
agreement to establish wage standards for the market, and
in accordance with these to equalize the rates of pay of
corresponding groups of workers.

In connection with its market wage decision of Decem-
ber, 1919, the Board of Arbitration144 authorized the ap-
pointment of a " leveling commission," or Committee on Dis-
parities in Rates, to be presided over by the Chairman of the
Trade Board. The task of this Committee was to investigate
the subject of relative inequalities in rates then existing in
the market and to recommend such increases for underpaid
sections as would bring them up to the market rate. In Feb-
ruary, 1920, the committee made its report and the Board of
Arbitration approved its recommendations145 as to specific
rate increases and declared them retroactive to December
15, 1919, when the general wage increase had gone into
effect.

The disparities in rates as between different houses in the
market evidently were very considerable in some instances.
It is significant of the strength of the union, therefore, that
all the leveling was upward. The extent of it is suggested
by a case brought146 before the Board of Arbitration on a
question of interpretation of the award, late in March, 1920.
A petition, filed by the representative of the vestmakers, set
forth that Mr. G., labor manager, had advised a certain con-
tractor not to give the back pay due on account of the report
of the Committee on Disparities in Rates. The union asked
for redress. Mr. G. explained that he understood that the
award by the leveling committee was not to cost the employ-
ers more than 20 per cent, of their payroll, and in this case
it would cost the contractor considerably more than 20 per
cent, to conform to the award. The Board of Arbitration,
however, held " that the award must be carried out as uni-
formly as is practicable and that to make an exception for
this contractor would be without justification. As regards
the 20 per cent, limit, this was an estimate, made in Decem-

322 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

ber on the best information then available, but was not a
fixed limit."

-•C The whole trend of wage adjustments through the medium
of the impartial machinery has been in the direction of secur-
ing greater uniformity in rates if not in the actual earnings
of workers. The union has favored such standardization
partly because it makes possible the elimination of individual
bargaining together with the consequent dangers to mini-
mum standards and to organization discipline, and partly
because it shifts the burden of competition among manu-
facturers from wage standards and labor conditions gener-
ally to the field of managerial efficiency. The employers
have, on the whole, accepted standardization of wages with
little opposition up to a certain point. They have been con-
cerned with reducing labor turnover in the height of the
season, when free competition by employers for workers un-
restrained by considerations of union scales would have
brought serious embarrassment to some of them.

We have already seen by what procedure standardization
of piece rates was accomplished for the Chicago market
through the agency of the leveling commission. A like com-
mission about the same time rendered a similar service for
week workers in the tailor shops, specifically for tailors,
bushelmen, bushel girls, and examiners or inspector tailors.
In this case it was proposed by the union that minimum
scales should be set up for the various groups of week
workers, based on a classification of the operations performed
by them. Such a classification was jointly agreed upon and
approved by the Board of Arbitration,147 to whom the com-
mittee reported. The union's argument on behalf of mini-
mum scales was that " they tend to stability in the market
and to prevent constant irritation and dissatisfaction on the
part of workers who believe that they are being paid less than
other workers of similar ability in other shops, or in the same
shop." The employers' chief objection was that " any mini-
mum rate ought to be matched by a definite standard of
production in both quality and quantity." In view of this
objection, the Board of Arbitration was unwilling at the

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 828

time to take the responsibility of fixing a minimum by de-
cision. Such basic questions of wage determination are best
left to negotiation and agreement between the parties, in
which the function of the impartial chairman is merely that
of mediator. The Board did, however, take a considerable
step in the direction of standardization by setting average
standards for the market. Its decision1*7 on this point reads,
in part, as follows:

" Standards of Wages — Insofar as the wages paid to workers
are below those paid to other workers of similar ability in other
shops, or in the shop, there is bound to be dissatisfaction. A
discontented worker is not usually a good investment for a firm.
The figures submitted by various houses show that there is a
considerable difference which can scarcely be credited entirely
to the respective efficiency of the different workmen. Standards
will naturally be expected to consider to some extent the rela-
tive rates in different markets, in different houses in Chicago,
between different groups of workers, and finally between dif-
ferent workers of the same sort. The Board believes that the
general effort to do justice to these various considerations by
leveling up the lower-paid houses, which has already been car-
ried out to a considerable degree in the case of certain piece-
work sections, may properly be directed to secure greater uni-
formity in the case of certain at least of these week workers. It
will not fix a flat rate, as a minimum for every week worker, but
it will fix a market average rate. It will permit the firms lati-
tude in their present practice of making a distinction between
the more and the less efficient * * * ."

In line with the same general policy of standardization
of wages in the market are the efforts to reduce extreme
disparities in earnings above the norm. As part of the
market decision on wages148 of April, 1921, the Board of
Arbitration provided for the leveling down of " peaks "
or unduly high rates of pay in certain sections of the
industry. The intention was to offset exceptional advan-
tages gained by workers in such sections at a time of labor
stringency chiefly through individual arrangements with
their employer either on his or on their initiative. A num-
ber of employers made application to the Board under
this ruling for leveling of peaks in their establishments, but

324 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

in most of these cases their request was denied. The gen-
eral position of the Board of Arbitration is that where wage
rates have been duly fixed by agreement or collective bar-
gaining they are beyond the jurisdiction of the impartial
machinery to revoke. Thus in one case149 brought to the
Board of Arbitration under the decision on " peaks," the
Chairman ruled " that he will not consider and reduce alleged
peak rates predating the signing of the agreement in 1919."
And he advanced as a reason for his refusal that " except in
an emergency he does not believe that it is his function by de-
cision to undo what has been done by agreement of the
parties in interest." Consistently with this position, the
Chairman then recommended that the parties negotiate
among themselves with regard to the peaks in question and
apply the savings effected at those points to leveling up any
underpaid sections still remaining. In this way it was made
easier for the union to agree to a reduction of peaks while
the demand for such reduction on the employer's part was
rendered less insistent.

In another case of this character160 the request of a manu-
facturer for the reduction of certain peaks was denied by
the Board of Arbitration on the ground that though the
workers concerned had an earning capacity considerably
above the market norm for these operations, still by compari-
son with piece rates paid for similar work by other houses
in the market, the rates in question were only slightly if at all
excessive.

If a Chicago manufacturer desired to avail himself of that
paragraph in the market wage decision of 1921 which bears
upon the reduction of peaks, the burden of proof rested
upon him. He had to prove, first, that the worker or section
in question had increased their piece rate since the market
agreement of 1919 went into effect; secondly, that the in-
crease, though brought about through individual bargaining,
was involuntary on the firm's part ; and thirdly, that the pro-
tested rate was excessive as compared with prevailing rates
for such work in the market. These rules were laid down by
the Board of Arbitration151 in passing on the merits of

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 825

twenty-two different peak rates, whose reduction had been
requested by one firm.

The reason for the first of these rules, viz., that " the Board
will not make reductions where there has been no increase
under the agreement other than by the general award of
December, 1919," is to be found in the principle that what
collective bargaining has given, arbitration may not take
away. To attempt to do so might discredit the method of
wage arbitration itself. The second ruling, that the Board
" will not make reductions where the firm itself gave in-
creases, without collective bargaining, except where it is
shown that such increases resulted from pressure exerted by
workers or shop chairmen," is based on a policy of discourag-
ing individual bargaining. ' The Board does not regard it
as proper policy to place a premium on anything but collec-
tive bargaining. Everyone knows that under the agreement
piece rates are to be fixed by collective bargaining between
the firm's representative and the union's authorized repre-
sentative. If they are fixed otherwise it is mismanagement
of a type that tends strongly to undermine the agreement.
The Chairman does not regard it as good policy to relieve a
firm from the results of mismanagement, especially where it
has been very evident." The third rule, that the Board
" will not reduce any rate unless it is substantially in excess
of a fair price," is intended to discourage a multitude of
claims that might entail a general lowering of piece rates in
the market.

All three of the foregoing rules are found illustrated in the
decision of the Board of Arbitration in reference to the
twenty-two alleged peak rates. The firm had raised the
question of prohibitive labor cost in its coat shop and in the
Board's opinion there was no doubt of its being relatively
high. Nevertheless, the Board refused relief on this score,
holding that the high costs were " due very largely to prices
set and wages paid by the firm before the agreement was
entered into." The Board then declared that it had " con-
sistently followed the rule not to reduce wages below the
level obtaining at the time the agreement was entered into.

326 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

It will not deviate from that rule in this case ( 1 ) because it
doubts its authority under the agreement to do so in a special
case, and (2) because there are other costs in which there is
as much need for readjustment as here."

The rule outlawing rates resulting from individual bar-
gaining finds application in the refusal by the Board to re-
duce the rate for front shaping, which had been increased
from 9 to 10 cents on request of the worker and without
knowledge of the deputy. The worker's rate was found to
be " somewhat high, but the increase was granted by the fore-
man on request of the worker and without threat of quitting,
so it is permitted to stand." Where pressure is brought to
bear by the worker to secure an increase in his rate, the in-
crease is illegal and may be taken away by the employer or
by the Board, as in the following instance: ' The rate for
lining making on sack coats is 20 cents. * * * The basic
rate was increased 3 cents after the deputy refused to take
up the worker's request for an increase. The worker * * *
went to the foreman and stated that he would quit unless he
was given an increase of 3 cents. This the foreman gave.
* * * Both the rate of earnings and price are high. In-
asmuch as the worker did not accept the disposition of the
deputy whose business it is to fix piece rates in this house
but threatened to quit, and inasmuch as the foreman did not
take the matter of the piece rate up with the deputy as he is
expected to do, the Board directs that half of the increase
given shall be taken off."

In illustration of the rule that a rate, to be considered a
peak, must be markedly excessive, there is the case of the
brusher in this house. His rate " is not much above the
average for houses where the work is comparable. It is per-
mitted to stand." On the other hand, where the discrepancy
is marked, the leveling process does operate : " The rate for
seam and pocket pressing * * * was increased from
6.98 to 7.5, * * * and then to 8.5 cents. As usual, the
dealings were between foreman and worker. Whether or not
there was a threat to quit is in dispute. Rate of earnings,

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 827

comparative prices and other details warrant a reduction of
1/2 cent from the present price."

The policy of standardization of wages, whether in the //
form of piece rates or of weekly scales, carries with it as a
consequence a tendency toward stability. Once wage stand-
ards have been fixed for the various operations in the in-
dustry, and are uniformly applied to all employers and
workers under the agreement, it becomes immediately to the
advantage of the employers as a group and of the union to
enforce these standards against any individual — either em-
ployer or worker — who might be disposed to ignore them.
Furthermore, because of this common vested interest set
up in market standards, it becomes more difficult to change
them, the more so in view of the effect of any change upon
the competitive position of the market as a whole in relation
to other markets. Today we see standardization of wages
gradually extending beyond the limits of the local market
and taking on national scope. Proposed changes in any
market come, therefore, to involve elaborate negotiations and
arbitration, and considerable force of facts and argument is
required to realize them. Thus, standards tend to perpet-
uate themselves insofar as they become customary and as
the industry becomes adjusted to them.

There are, however, other forces making in the opposite
direction, namely, for upsetting existing standards. Chief
among these is the fluctuation of business and employment
— whether of the seasonal or cyclical type. At a period of
brisk trade, when workers are fully employed and the re-
quirements of the industry for labor exceed the available
supply, the advantage of having wage standards backed up
by the union lies primarily on the side of the employers.
They stand immediately to gain through the restriction of
competition among employers for workers on a basis of in-
dividual and sectional wage increases which benefit only cer-
tain privileged groups of workers as against the rest. The
union's concern is with the entire membership without dis-
crimination or favoritism. When the tide turns and depres-
sion in the trade sets in, it is the workers who derive the

828 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

primary benefit from the existence of wage scales and stand-
ards. The maintenance of these standards by a powerful
organization prevents that undercutting of rates when jobs
are few and workers are many that used to demoralize at
every slack period the industry and the people in it, and to
destroy what there was of organization among them.

It is at such times, also, that the more far-sighted and
responsible among the employers remember the beneficial
workings of standards upheld by the union against its indi-
vidual members at the peak of the season, and consider the
value of similar cooperation by the union in the future. These
employers are, accordingly, disposed to cooperate in their
turn for the maintenance of union standards. It is because
the union, as the permanent organization of all the workers,
is concerned not merely with the temporary advantage of
some of its members — such as individual bargaining at the
height of the season might secure them — but rather with the
permanent advancement of all, that it pursues a policy of
stabilization of wage rates. It aims to minimize the seasonal
ups and downs and the dependence of wages on every flurry
of trade, and proposes to assure to its members humane and
progressive standards of income as a fixed charge upon the
industry with which they are so vitally identified.

It is a fact that the union through its enforcement of wage
scales and otherwise has exercised a stabilizing influence
upon the industry in Chicago at a time when a short-sighted
opportunism might have dictated the opposite course. This
fact has been clearly recognized by the Board of Arbitration
on several occasions in its wage decisions as entitling the
workers to special consideration at its hands. In his market
award144 of December 22, 1919, Professor Tufts took occa-
sion to declare that " both the Firms and the Union members
have made certain financial sacrifices for the sake of a larger
end. The labor market is being stabilized ; good will is being
cultivated, responsibility is being built up. This cannot be
overlooked by the Board." And in April, 1921, in a period
of severe business depression, when the tendency of wages

M. C. Fisch,
Recording Secretary

Louis Schultz,
Vice President

Joseph Goldman,
President

A. N. Fisher,
President, 1920-1921

Charles H. Burr,
Secretary-Treasurer

Alex Levin,

Chairman, Board of Direc-
tors

Offir

ft,.

THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES 829

everywhere was downward, Professor Millis148 summed up
the union's position on this point in the following language :

" In periods of rising prices and of business activity, the
Union has exercised its powers of discipline over its members
and has restrained them from accepting substantial increases in
wages which they could have received with great ease and which
indeed were frequently offered by the employers themselves. The
agreement has therefore operated in such periods so as to stabil-
ize the market and reduce labor turnover. The Union feels that
in return for the stability and restraint granted in periods of
business prosperity, the members of the Union should be assured
by the agreement the same stability and protection against
instability when there is a business lull and when the market
is falling. It would be entirely natural for its members to feel
that an agreement which made for stabilization in periods of
business activity when they were asked to make sacrifices, and
which did not ask the same sacrifices of the manufacturers in
periods of business depression, was unfair to them. It would
be unfortunate, indeed, if the workers were made to feel by a
decision that the Board of Arbitration employed double stand-
ards."

THE PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE

THE original Hart, Schaffner and Marx Agreement,
adopted at the close of the 1910 strike and signed on Jan-
uary 14, 1911, was a strictly open-shop agreement, in the
sense that it guaranteed equal treatment to all workers
employed by the firm, regardless of their membership in the
union. The second of the four provisions embodied in that
simple document stipulated that " There shall be no dis-
crimination of any kind whatsoever against any of the em-
ployes of Hart, Schaffner and Marx because they are or
are not members of the United Garment Workers of
America." The agreement, it must be noted, was entered
into not officially with the union but only with the employes
of Hart, Schaffner and Marx who were, at the time, on
strike. The union, as such, was not recognized as a party
to the arrangement. It was entitled to exist as a voluntary
association of workers who wished to belong to it, but it had
no means of approaching the management directly as a
trade union. Nor was it, on the other hand, to be singled
out for discrimination or suppression, as is usually the case
under a so-called open-shop plan.

But to tolerate the existence of a union when it is weak and
without power to interfere with the acts and regulations of
management affecting the workers, is one thing. To permit
that union to grow strong and to seek to extend its control
over the workers as a step toward exercising control over the
management, is quite another. The theory of the open shop
as a permanent arrangement presupposes a stable balance of
power as between the employer and the workers, if not a
safe preponderance of power on the side of the former. It
breaks down in practice as soon as one or the other party
attempts to alter the balance. It breaks down when the
employer feels himself sufficiently powerful to endeavor to

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 331

rid himself of whatever restraints the activity or the mere
presence of the organization imposes on his freedom. It
breaks down, likewise, when the organization gains in power
relative to the employer and uses this ascendancy to secure
from him recognition for itself and concessions for its mem-
bers that he would not voluntarily grant. In practice, there-
fore, the tendency of an open shop is either to degenerate
into a non-union shop or to develop into some form of union
shop with union recognition and participation.

This statement describes with substantial accuracy what
happened in the case of the Hart, Schaffner and Marx ex-
periment with the open shop. The clothing workers had
carried to a successful conclusion a long and bitter strike.
They were keenly conscious not only of their old grievances
— for which the agreement promised redress — but also of
their new power through solidarity and organization. The
company, on the other hand, was embarking on its new labor
policy in the hope of dealing with its people in so humane
and enlightened a manner as to disarm hostility and sus-
picion, to win their personal loyalty, and thus to cut the
ground from under the growth of a rival loyalty to the union.
The union on its part was only nominally an organ of the
United Garment Workers. The people regarded it as in-
timately their own, and it embodied for them their hopes and
aspirations for the future. The leaders, distinguished above
the rest by their greater faith and vision, lost no opportunity
to make the union an active reality in peace as it had been
in war. The many evils of the old autocratic order that con-
stituted the grievances of the workers before the strike, and
the other numerous issues between the management and the
workers that arose as problems of the new order required
some form of joint conference for their presentation and ad-
justment. It was necessary that the workers should be some-
how represented in their dealings with the management and
particularly with the newly created arbitration board, by
those who could speak for them effectively and with author-
ity. This is where the union found its function and its
opportunity to serve the people. With the inauguration of

332 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the Trade Board in May of 1912, this opportunity was
greatly extended, since it involved the recognition and func-
tioning of regular deputies and other officials responsible in
all but name to the organization.

When the time came for renewing the agreement, early
in 1913, the people presented among many other demands
one for the virtual establishment of a union shop. They
asked for this because they wished to insure themselves
against the possibility of discrimination on account of union
activity, on one hand, and, on the other, to secure a larger
measure of control for their organization which by that time
had greatly strengthened its hold upon the adherence of the
people. The company, however, was not willing to sur-
render so much control to the people as was implied in the
demand for a 100 per cent, union shop, fearing the use a
militant union might make of such suddenly acquired power.
Out of this deadlock and the prospect of another clash of
^ forces there came the suggestion of a preferential union shop
as a compromise solution. This was presented to both sides
by Messrs. Williams, Hillman, and Howard, and adopted
on March 29, 1 91 3, two days before the expiration of the old
agreement. The first clause in this working basis of a pref-
erential agreement provided:

" That the firm agrees to this principle of preference, namely,
that they will agree to prefer union men in the hiring of new
employes, subject to reasonable restrictions, and also to prefer
union men in dismissal on account of slack work, subject to a
reasonable preference to older employes, to be arranged by the
Board of Arbitration, it being understood that all who have
worked for the firm six months shall be considered old em-
ployes."

The application of the principle of " reasonable prefer-
ence " was left to the Board of Arbitration to work out in
detail. Mr. Williams, the chairman, in accepting this new
responsibility, outlined the point of view from which he
would approach the problem of protecting the people's inter-
\ ests under the preferential arrangement, in these words:
" The chief interest of the employes centers around the ques-

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 338

tion of an increased efficiency of organization, which requires
a recognition of the need for such a substantial degree of
preference as will tend to improve that efficiency."

The preferential system inaugurated by the agreement of
1918, and elaborated in subsequent agreements, has resulted
in the practically complete unionization of the industry, first
in the factories of Hart, Schaffner and Marx, and later
throughout the market. The steps by which this result was
achieved can only be suggested in this place. The agree-
ment of 1913 definitely recognized the union. It was con-
cluded between the Joint Board of the Garment Workers on
one side and the Company on the other. It provided for
union preference in hiring and discharge. The manner in
which such preference was to be applied was formulated in
a series of decisions promulgated by the Board of Arbitra-
tion in August of 1913, and these became part and parcel of
the agreement. Thus was laid down, once for all, the funda-
mental law of the industry on the momentous question of —

PREFERENCE IN HIRING

" When in need of additional workers the company shall give
the first opportunity of employment to union members if they
can be obtained ; if the union cannot furnish them the company
may procure the needed help from any other source.

" To give effect to this preference with as little friction or
inconvenience as possible the following provisions are made :

" The company shall furnish the union a list of the number
and kind of workers needed, specifying the date on which the
applicants must report, which list shall be furnished as far in
advance as possible.

" The union shall keep on file with the company a list of such
union applicants for work as it may wish to offer, which list
shall be corrected from time to time and kept up to date.

" The company shall keep an employment record which shall
show the date of engagement of all new workers and the kind
of work they are employed for and the place of work in which
they are assigned.

" If, after advance notice has been given, the union fails to
have on its list of applicants the number and kind of workers
needed by the company on the specified date, or if the needed
applicants fail to report in person on that date, then the com-

834 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

pany may assume that union workers are not available and may
procure help elsewhere.

" In case of an emergency, when advance notice cannot be
given, the company may communicate orally or by telephone
with the representatives of the union, and in case the union
cannot furnish help, the company may proceed to hire elsewhere.

" If an applicant has been recently discharged for cause, or
if under the influence of liquor, or obviously incompetent, the
company shall not be required to employ him. Otherwise, the
candidates offered by the union shall have first opportunity of
employment."

In accordance with this decision,152 the union was pre-
^ sented with an opportunity for placing its own members in
jobs whenever vacancies had to be filled by the company.
One important consequence of this preferred position of the
union in the labor market was that it attracted to itself a
great many new members who saw a very definite material
advantage for themselves where previously they had only
seen a sentimental reason for joining the union. A further
consequence was that with a rapidly expanding membership
the union soon acquired sufficient control over the labor sup-
ply in the market to greatly augment its bargaining power
with the employer. Looking backward over the nine years
during which the preferential shop has been in operation,
its total effect has been practically the same as would have
followed from a closed union shop, except that it has per-
mitted of greater elasticity in the labor supply in response
to the changing needs of a growing industry.

How this elasticity is attained without injury to the union's
right to preferential treatment of its members out of work,
is indicated in the following case.183 The union requested the
Trade Board to direct the company to discharge two non-
union cutters, who had been taken on when the cutting force
was to be increased. The company replied that the labor
manager had notified the union deputy that the company
needed fifty more cutters; that later a written requisition
was sent to the union office; and that the union had sent only
one cutter in response to this requisition. The Trade Board
ruled that technically the objection of the union as to the

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 335

filling of the places of cutters before the union had an oppor-
tunity to supply men to the company was sound. ' The
fact, however, that it was1 practically impossible for the union
to supply the cutters required must be taken into considera-
tion. If it should be that the union did supply the cutters
by the next day or two, the complaint might have some sub-
stantial support. But it is known that cutters are not avail-
able and will not be available. Under the circumstances, the
Trade Board can find no ground for directing the withdrawal
of these men. When the union is unable to supply the neces-
sary cutters, the company is free to help itself as it can by
using non-union men."

The employer is required to give the union a reasonable
opportunity to fill his requisition for help before he may
proceed to engage workers through other sources. The later
Chicago agreements, including those with Hart, Schaffner
and Marx as well as with the associations, provide on this
point in substantially similar language, as follows :

" It is agreed that the principle of the preferential shop shall
prevail, to be applied in the following manner:

" Preference shall be applied in hiring and discharge. When-
ever the employer needs additional workers, he shall first make
application to the union, specifying the number and kind of
workers needed. The union shall be given a reasonable time
to supply the specified help, and if it is unable, or for any rea-
son fails to furnish the required people, the employer shall be at
liberty to secure them in the open market as best he can."

Exactly what is a " reasonable time " for the purpose in
question is not defined in the agreement. But usage in
Hart, Schaffner and Marx allows three days, while for the
rest of the market forty-eight hours is the standard. In
one instance154 the union complained that the company had
violated the agreement in that it hired people before send-
ing in a requisition, or before the requisition had expired.
The company in reply claimed that they had always filled
vacancies before requisition was issued, or before it expired.
If the union sent in help these newly hired workers were let
out. The Trade Board ruled that the agreement was to be

336 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

observed. Workers were not to be hired except after requi-
sition had been turned into the union, and three days' time
was to be allowed for filling the requirements. "If an
emergency arises, the union should not be insistent on its
rights under the, agreement but give sufficient cooperation to
avoid handicapping production."

The obligation of the employer under the preferential
clause of the agreement to give the union reasonable time to
fill his requisition, holds good, however the vacancy was
caused. Thus, if a worker is sent by the union in response
to a requisition and he is rejected after trial or quits of his
own volition, the union is entitled to another interval of time
in which to replace him. " In either case the right to hire
in the open market cannot follow immediately without de-
feating in effect the preferential clause of the agreement."
On the other hand, it is expected that the union will give
prompt attention to requisitions in the interest of efficient
production. Not only in an emergency is this cooperation
expected, but generally whenever no sacrifice of essential
interests is involved. A case illustrating both the legal obli-
gation on the employer's side and the moral responsibility
on the part of the union is the following:155

The firm in this case had filed requisition for a canvas
presser on July 8. The union did not fill the requisition.
On July 13 a brother of the shop chairman; made application
for the place and the employment manager took him to the
union for an O. K. The union refused to give an O. K.,
claiming that other men were available. The next day the
union sent a man with an O. K. He quit at the end of the
day, whereupon the firm re-opened its requisition. The
union did not send another man up to 12.30 p. m. of the
next day and the firm hired the brother of the shop chair-
man. This worker also quit at the end of the day, the firm
claiming that he was forced to quit by the union. After
hearing both sides, the impartial chairman declared that the
firm was technically bound by the agreement not only to re-
open its requisition after the first man quit, but again to
wait forty-eight hours for another applicant to be sent by

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 837

the union. " At the same time," the chairman held, " the
union should make every effort to replace those sent on
requisitions who quit or who do not meet the requirements
of the position, without standing on technical rights * * *.
To stand on technical rights is to subject the preferential
clause of the agreement to undue strain and defeat its main
purpose."

In the foregoing case the firm waited beyond what has
come to be accepted as " reasonable " time, in order to give
the union ample opportunity to fill the requisition. The
question as to what constitutes reasonable time, however,
cannot be settled without regard to circumstances. It must
depend within limits on the ability of the employer to fore-
see a need for help and to wait for having it supplied. Al-
though for practical purposes an interval of two or three
working days has been adopted as the customary minimum
allowance for the union to find the needed workers, if an
employer should find himself under exceptional pressure
to fill vacancies or add new workers to his force, he has a
right to call on the union to supply his need in less than the
allotted time. In the event of the union's inability to do so,
he may supplement its efforts on his own account. This
right is based on the clause in the agreement, already quoted,
which reads : "In case of an emergency, when advance
notice cannot be given, the company may communicate orally
or by telephone with the representatives of the union, and
in case the union cannot furnish help, the company may
proceed to hire elsewhere."

The distinction between ordinary situations and emergen-
cies in the hiring of help that is implied in the above cited
provision, was invoked by the Trade Board in a concrete
case,18" where the question of what is " reasonable time "
was the issue. In the words of the decision, " ' reasonable '
time has been held to be forty-eight hours. The Board ap-
preciates that emergencies may arise in which the firm has
no advance knowledge of a vacancy. The union is expected
to cooperate in meeting such an emergency and to use every
effort to see that requisitions are filled promptly." In return

338 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

for such cooperation on the part of the union, the employer
may be expected not to construe too technically the term
" reasonable time," when there is no emergency and the union
needs more than the minimum period for filling a requi-
sition.

When an employer is in need of help he must apply for it
to the employment office of the union, specifying, in accord-
ance with the agreement " the number and kind of workers
needed." The union is expected to meet the employer's re-
quirements as nearly and as promptly as possible. But if
the union has reason to believe that there is anything im-
proper in the requisition, it may decline to 'fill it with respect
to the disputed specification, pending appeal to the Trade
Board. In one instance of this sort157 the firm complained to
the Trade Board that the union had failed to honor a requisi-
tion for a female operator and had sent a male worker in-
stead. The Trade Board ruled that the man was to be hired
and given a fair trial. The union cannot be expected to be a
party to sex discrimination, especially when this may lead to
a lowering of standards. In another case168 where the union
refused to honor a requisition calling for female operators,
the Trade Board ruled as follows: ' What is and what is
not a proper requisition depends upon circumstances. If
women workers are wanted at low wages to fill places hereto-
fore filled by men at higher wages, the requisition becomes
improper. If, on the other hand, the workers in the section
are women and a man would be a disturbing element, a
requisition for a woman worker with explanation why only a
woman worker is wanted should be accepted and make no
difficulty."

When no interests of the workers or of the union are in-
fringed, the union must either furnish the help called for by
the requisition or leave the employer free to find the needed
workers elsewhere. On one occasion159 the union petitioned
against the employment of girls in the jack section of the
trimming department. The chairman of the Board of Arbi-
tration, ruling on the principle at issue, said : ' The chair-
man holds that ' jack boys ' is a colloquial and familiar ex-

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 839

pression, not necessarily a sex definition, and does not imply
a prohibition of female labor. If and when girls are em-
ployed in the jack section, they shall receive the same rate
of pay as boys when doing the same work."

A requisition may be improper because its indirect effect
is to lower the standard of wages in the shop. A certain firm
was following the practice of filling vacancies in the tailor
shop with learners. It had been requisitioning the union
from time to time for learners at the minimum wage. The
position of the union in complaining to the Trade Board160
of this practice was that it does not have learners but does
have experienced workers and that the practice tended to
reduce the average wages for the section. The Board held
that a requisition for learners was not a proper requisition.
The principle involved was, according to the Board,
" whether the firm may employ new workers at wages that
will reduce the average for the section. It has been held in
several previous cases that this may not be done. * * *
The average for the section must be maintained, otherwise
the firm might break down standards by employing new
workers at lower wages."

In the hiring of new workers the agreement is explicit in
requiring the employer to give preference to union members.
As long as the union is able to supply workers not obviously
disqualified, the employer must hire them and may not obtain
help otherwise. This principle was upheld in a Trade Board
decision161 and confirmed on appeal by the Board of Arbitra-
tion. The union in that case had complained of the rejection
by the company of trimmers supplied by the union on requisi-
tion. The Trade Board ruled that the language of the agree-
ment required the company to hire such union men as might
be sent to them on requisition; that the company is not at
liberty to depart from hiring union men until the supply of
union men is exhausted, and the company was found in viola-
tion of the agreement. The company appealed the case, and
the chairman of the Board of Arbitration stated : " This case
relates to the practice of preference in the selection of union
men at time of hiring. The company claims it has unlimited

340 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

right of selection and rejection. The union claims the com-
pany must accept any union man sent until by trial he proves
himself unfit for the job. The chairman finds this question
defined in the old agreement about as clearly as he feels able
to state it * * *." The provision referred to is the final
paragraph under the head of " Preference in Hiring,"
quoted above, and reading as follows :

" If an applicant has been recently discharged for cause, or
if under the influence of liquor, or obviously incompetent, the
company shall not be required to employ him. Otherwise the
candidates offered by the union shall have first opportunity of
employment."

In another case162 the union complained that a pocket
maker whom it had sent to the company was refused employ-
ment. The evidence showed that the employment manager
refused to hire him on the ground that his frequent quitting
on previous occasions had made him an undesirable employe.
The Trade Board ruled that " under the agreement the com-
pany is required to hire the worker sent by the union unless
he has been recently discharged, is obviously incompetent, or
is intoxicated at the time of application. None of these con-
ditions are found in this case."

The employer is required to hire workers sent by the union
on requisition in the order in which they are sent. This in-
sures, insofar as the union's employment bureau is efficiently
conducted, that those members who have been longest unem-
ployed shall be the first to be placed in jobs. In one case163
the union complained that G, a seam and pocket presser, had
not been given employment. G had formerly been employed
in this factory and had been laid off at his own request for
three months. Before the expiration of this period, however,
he had heard of a vacancy in his section and applied to the
union for the place but was rejected by the firm because his
lay-off permit had not expired. The Trade Board, on hear-
ing the evidence, directed that he be employed. He was
entitled to the position, " because a seam and pocket presser
had been requisitioned and he, as a union man, had been sent
in response to the requisition. If the company was not in

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 841

need of a seam and pocket presser the agreement could not
require the company to give G work until the permit expired.
But when the company needs a presser and G needs the work
it would seem that under the general provisions regarding
preference in hiring G could report for work and would be
entitled to work. If his work is not satisfactory, the com-
pany has the usual means for discipline available."

The only valid grounds for refusing to hire a worker sent
by the union on requisition of the employer are those laid
down in Mr. Williams' decision on the subject152 of August,
1913. The passage reads as follows: " If an applicant has
been recently discharged for cause, or if under the influence
of liquor, or obviously incompetent, the company shall not
be required to employ him." Relying on this section, the
union in one case164 complained to the Trade Board that the
company had refused to hire B, an off -presser, sent in re-
sponse to a requisition. The company's objection to hiring
B was that he had been found undesirable when formerly
employed there. At that time B had been suspended by the
company but was ordered reinstated by the Trade Board.
In view of this fact, the Trade Board found that the com-
pany had not followed the provisions of the agreement, and
directed the employment of B with one day's back pay.

In the foregoing case the worker's record was cleared by
the action of the Trade Board in reinstating him. Had his
suspension been confirmed or had he resigned his position in
order to avoid trial, he would have forfeited his rights as a
candidate for re-employment later. This, at least, is the con-
struction placed upon the provision in the agreement by an
arbitration decision of Professor Millis.165 The occasion for
that decision was presented by the case of a woman worker
who applied for a position as finisher in a factory where she
had been previously employed and had served as shop chair-
lady. In connection with charges of intimidation growing
out of a Trade Board case at that time she resigned her
chairmanship and took a layoff. When she returned in re-
sponse to a requisition of the firm, she was refused employ-
ment on the ground that she had been a " trouble maker ".

342 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

The union then charged the firm with violating the agree-
ment, citing the clause of disqualifications in support of its
claim. The Trade Board, on hearing the complaint, ex-
pressed the opinion that the resignation of the girl on the
previous occasion indicated that she had not wished to meet
the prospective charge of intimidating a witness. Rather
than do so, she had resigned her office and taken a layoff.
" The opposition of the company to such evasion can be
easily understood and their refusal to rehire the girl war-
ranted by the record and circumstances attending her resig-
nation. Moreover, such refusal to hire works no hardship.
The demand for finishers always exceeds the supply." When
the? case came up for review by the Board of Arbitration, the
question as it presented itself was " whether when one resigns
under fire, he or she may properly be refused re-employment
when sent on requisition." And the chairman ruled in the
affirmative :

" It is obvious that if a worker who has ' quit under fire '
must be accepted by the company it would defeat the purpose
the Board had in view when it made its earlier ruling (August,
1913), unless after re-employment suspension can be imposed
for something done previous to such re-employment. It is
obvious, also, that if re-employment can be immediately fol-
lowed by such suspension, nothing is accomplished. The chair-
man is of the opinion that where a worker * quits under fire,'
the company may properly refuse to re-employ him or her, but
that this refusal should be subject to review by the Trade Board.
This would protect the worker, and disposes of the matter as it
would be were the worker discharged and if questioned, the dis-
charge reviewed by the Trade Board."

The concluding clauses of the decision just quoted assure
the candidate for re-employment against unfair discrimina-
tion, even where the circumstances of his previous quitting
have clouded his record. The same protection of appeal to
the Trade Board is extended to the applicant for employ-
ment with a firm for whom he has not previously worked at
all. If sent on requisition and refused employment by the
firm, he has the right of appeal to the impartial machinery on
the merits of his case. Though he has not been hired and is,
therefore, technically not an employe of the firm, he may

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 843

through the union bring complaint against the firm and, if
justified, secure employment. To illustrate: The union
charged before the Trade Board166 that the company had
refused to hire one A, a cutter, when presented for employ-
ment in response to a requisition for help. The company
refused to submit evidence to the Trade Board when the
issue was brought to trial, on the ground that the cutter was
not an employe of the company and therefore not entitled
to the use of the trial boards. The alleged ground on which
the man had been refused employment was that of incom-
petence. The Trade Board thereupon ordered the cutter to
be emploj^ed by the company. The company appealed to the
Board of Arbitration, and the full Board decided that the
company was in error in refusing to submit its evidence and
proceed with the trial. The three arbitrators agreed unani-
mously in this decision and directed that the case be remanded
to the Trade Board to be tried on its merits under the evi-
dence.

Before the union had come to be recognized in the Chicago
clothing industry, and the preferential union shop had be-
come an established institution, the employers enjoyed prac-
tically unlimited freedom in hiring and selecting new help.
This freedom, especially when exercised by them collectively
through a central employment bureau controlled by the
manufacturers' association, gave to the employers a fearful
power over their workers. It enabled them by means of a
system of records to control the opportunities for employ-
ment in the market. It made possible a blacklisting system
which for a long time effectively undermined every effort at
unionization of the workers. Through the adoption of the
preferential principle in hiring, the control over the supply
and allocation of labor in the industry has in large part
passed into the hands of the union. It is the union's employ-
ment bureau that has first call on the providing of workers
to the employer and that makes the selection of candidates
for him. Anti-union discrimination is no longer possible.
Nor is it any, longer permissible for employers to agree
among themselves to deny employment to any worker on

344 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

grounds other than those specifically mentioned in the agree-
ment. The union must be a party to any regulation or legis-
lation bearing upon its members' right to employment. And
whenever this right is in dispute, the union becomes its de-
fender on the basis of the agreement.

A case167 in which the above principle finds illuminating
application is that of certain finishers whom the union sent
to X and Company, in response to requisition, and who were
not given employment while non-union girls were hired.
The company stated in justification of this action that the
Market Committee of Chicago had made a rule that people
leaving without consent the employment of one company
would not be hired by another, in order to preserve intact the
manufacturing organization of each employer. Because of
some temporary slackness in the shops of the Y Company,
some finishers had left there and had been sent by the union
to X and Company for employment. The company, con-
forming to the rule laid down by the Market Committee, had
refused to hire the girls. The union replied by protesting
this rule by the Market Committee and contended that it
could have no force or effect in view of the provisions of the
agreement dealing with the rule of preference in hiring
workers. The union pointed out that the language of the
agreement is definite : ' Whenever the employer needs
additional workers, he shall first make application to the
union, etc." The union contended that the company in ac-
cepting the rule of the Market Committee and in acting in
conformity with it had actually abrogated the preference
provisions of the agreement regarding hiring ; and that there-
fore neither the union nor the trial boards could recognize the
validity of the rule of the Market Committee, as all these
parties — the union, the company, and the trial boards — were
bound by the terms of the agreement, and these terms could
not be modified or set aside by any arrangement with other
manufacturers to which the union was not a party. While
agreeing that a stabilizing of the market was desirable and
necessary for the best interests of the industry, the union
would not admit the validity of the Market Committee rule

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 345

in the face of the specific provisions of the agreement. The
Trade Board regarded the position of the union as clearly
supported by the language of the agreement, and directed
that the girls sent by the union be given employment.

A similar issue168 arose between the union and another
firm in the market, to whom an operator had been sent on
requisition. According to the union's complaint, the firm
had inquired of the worker where she had been employed
previously, and then refused for nearly two and a half days
to employ her. The firm stated at the hearing that the shops
manufacturing children's suits had been inconvenienced
greatly by workers leaving without notice and had agreed
that no one would be employed who had left another shop
without notice. This worker had been employed as soon as
it could be ascertained that she had not quit her last place of
employment without notice. Chairman Squires of the Trade
Board in deciding this case in favor of the worker and against
the Market Committee rule, gave the following carefully
considered opinion on the point at issue :

" The Trade Board appreciates the inconvenience and loss
resulting from separations without notice and believes that it
should be possible by closer cooperation between the firm and
the union to protect the interests of both without resorting to
an agreement and practice of the nature indicated. The union
does not stand for quitting without notice, though it seems not
to have been possible thus far to find a way to insure that a
worker thus quitting will not be given work elsewhere. At the
same time the Board does not approve the method used by the
firm. Carried to its logical conclusion it is the equivalent of a
leaving certificate plan and might easily develo.p into something
even more objectionable. In a previous decision the Trade
Board stated that if the practice of quitting without notice
became an abuse it would be a proper subject for conference
or for action by the Board of Arbitration.

" In this case the worker had given notice at her last place of
employment and been released. Irrespective of the propriety of
the agreement between the firms it should have been a matter
of minutes rather than days to ascertain the fact that due
notice had been given. It should have been unnecessary for
the union to bring complaint to the firm. The Trade Board
directs that the worker be paid for time lost."

346 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

When an employer hires a worker sent on requisition, he
> is obliged to pay him the scale of wages established for the
operation specified in the requisition. If he subsequently
decides to employ the worker at a lower-paid operation, he
is not free to reduce the wage correspondingly. In one
case169 of complaint by the union that a worker had been
hired below the scale, it developed that the worker had been
hired as a tailor on requisition and then put at pulling threads
and paid accordingly. In his decision the impartial chair-
man stated: " The Trade Board would condemn in no un-
certain terms this method of hiring. Wage arrangements
should be made at the time of hiring and should not be left
open to invite dispute * * *. If the firm requisitioned
for a tailor and put him to work as a cleaner * * * it is
the firm's loss and not the tailor's."

Even in the case of newly hired workers for whose opera-
tion no established scale exists, the workers' interests in main-
taining their customary wage standards are protected. In
such cases the new worker is entitled to receive the wage re-
ceived by him in his previous place of employment. This
applied until recently to the cutters and in particular to the
trimmers before their earnings were determined by the
measure of their production. Several cases have been
brought before the Trade Board in which employers had
objected to accepting cutters or trimmers sent by the union
and paying them the wages paid in their last employment.
Except in one case, where a trimmer had been last employed
in an independent house to which he had gone at a consider-
ably higher wage than he had received in an association house,
the Trade Board has ruled against the employers on this
question. When the decision in these cases was appealed to
the Board of Arbitration for review,170 it was sustained, the
chairman ruling as follows: "For the present, unless ob-
viously unfit, or intoxicated or recently discharged for cause,
and unless it can be shown that irregularity is involved in
the filling of the requisition, the firm shall accept the trimmer
sent by the union and place him at work at the wage received
in the place of last employment, provided this is an associa-

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 347

tion house." Although this rule, at the time it was made,
was calculated to work to the advantage of the trimmer
changing his place of employment, it was a fair rule in view
of the fact, pointed out by the chairman, that at a time of
strong demand for trimmers in the market, the union had
accepted responsibility for holding its members on the job,
when it was easily possible for them to secure more money
elsewhere and when it would have been possible for the work-
ers to have exacted higher wages than they had received in
their last place of employment.

The exception made on behalf of the trimmer last em-
ployed in an independent house rests on the same principle.
During the time of active competition among employers for
workers, the union's responsibility for restraining its mem-
bers from leaving their places of employment for higher
wages elsewhere had not extended to the independent houses,
with the result that the wages there paid ranged higher than
in association houses. In these cases another decision of the
Trade Board,171 confirmed by the Board of Arbitration in
connection with the above ruling, applies :

" The Board recommends that where a trimmer comes from
an independent house * * * he shall be set at work unless
obviously unfit. The firm may discharge him after trial or
bring the case to the Trade Board and ask that a fair wage be
fixed for him. If he is discharged he shall be paid the wage
received in his last place of employment. If, on the other
hand, the matter is brought to the Trade Board, it will take all
of the facts into consideration and fix a fair wage. When the
case is brought, however, the firm should signify its willingness
to continue the worker in his employment at the wage fixed,
reserving, of course, the right to discharge for cause."

By vesting in the Trade Board the power of fixing a fair
wage in those cases where the maintenance of previous wages
might be inequitable, the decision above quoted provides pro-
tection for all interests involved. At the same time it re-
moves the question of wage adjustment in such cases from
the field of individual bargaining and places it under joint
control.

348 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

PREFERENCE IN LAY-OFFS

One of the undisputed rights of management is that of
laying off workers for administrative reasons. This right,
like others, was exercised by employers without restriction
until the union through the agreement defined the conditions
and the procedure under which workers might be laid off.
The necessity for lay-offs arises in part from the seasonal
nature of the clothing business. The regular rise and fall
in the demand for clothing and the changes in its character
from season to season impose upon the manufacturer the
necessity of alternately expanding and contracting his pro-
ductive activities. In the early history of the industry prac-
tically the entire burden of these fluctuations was borne by
the workers in- the form of periodic unemployment and over-
employment. It was easy for the manufacturer to reduce
his force or even to close his shop during the dull season,
thereby throwing his workers out of employment. He needed
to assume no responsibility for them at such times, since he
could readily replace them with the resumption of operations
the following season.

With the formation by the clothing workers of a perma-

*" nent and effective organization, the evils of seasonal unem-
ployment have been gradually alleviated. The up and down
movement of business from one season to another still con-
tinues and forces the manufacturer to adjust his production
policy to it. But he can no longer shift the entire burden
on to the backs of the workers. Nor does he even wish
to do so. New forces have come into play that make for

' a stabilization of production throughout the year as good
business policy. But more particularly it has become good
labor policy, and not a little of the credit for this change
belongs to the union. The union has sought ways and
means of meeting the periodic unemployment of its mem-
bers due to seasonal slackness in the trade, to general de-
pression in business and industry, to lack of orders or con-
traction of business in particular houses, etc. It has devised
a variety of administrative measures, and imposed them on
the employers, for spreading work and employment more

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 349

evenly through the season and generally. Among these de-
vices are the right to secure the reduction of over-crowded
sections, the right to equal division of work, the right of
transfer without loss of earnings, permanency of tenure and
the right to the job, rotation in] temporary lay-offs, etc. But
from the union's point of view, all these devices are made
more effective and more valuable in stabilizing employment
and equalizing work among its members through the appli-
cation to them of the preferential principle.

At this point we shall consider only the application of
preference in cases of lay-off. The lay-off of union members
is, in a sense, a last resort. It is invoked, even temporarily,
only when other devices are inapplicable for administrative
reasons. The Hart, Schaffner and Marx agreement, while
recognizing the right of the company to initiate a lay-off,
lays down the following general limitations upon its use:

" No union member who is a permanent worker shall be
laid off in the tailor shops except for cause, whether in the
slack or busy season, except as provided herein. Cause for
temporary lay-off may be alternation of working periods
in slack times, reorganization or; reduction of sections, lawful
discipline, and such other causes as may be provided for
herein or directed by the Trade Board." Under this pro-
vision, the conditions permitting the employer to resort to
a lay-off of union workers are defined. But what is more
important, the burden of proof is placed upon him to show in
any disputed case that such conditions actually exist to
justify the action taken. The judgment as to the necessity
in a given situation for laying off workers rests with the
Trade Board.

Preference to union workers in this connection, however,
signifies more than the right to appeal to the impartial ma-
chinery against the action or decision of the employer. It
means a practical distinction between union and non-union
workers, in favor of the former, in the order in which they
are to be dismissed. The most usual occasion for putting
a lay-off into effect is a shortage of work in the section, that

350 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

is not merely due to a passing irregularity in the flow of
work through the factory but to a seasonal or more perma-
nent slackness in trade or unbalance between sections. Such
a condition of persistent under-employment of the people
is known as over-crowding of sections. The interests of the
management and those of the union as to the continuance
of this condition are frequently opposed. In general, the
management prefers to keep the working force intact
through a slack period, unless the section consists of week
workers. The union, on the other hand, is concerned about
securing whatever work there is to be done for its own mem-
bers and distributing it equally among them. In other
words, it seeks to realize the benefits of the preference prin-
ciple, particularly if there are any non-union workers em-
ployed in the section. Under the caption of " Overcrowd-
ing of Sections," the agreement provides in the following
terms for the manner in which the principle is to be applied :

" Overcrowding of sections is important in this agreement as
the point at which the provision for preference (in lay-offs)
becomes operative. It is agreed that when there are too many
workers in a section to permit of reasonably steady employment,
a complaint may be lodged by the union, and if proved, the non-
union members of the section, or as many of them as may be
required to give the needed relief, shall be dismissed. For the
purpose of judging the application of preference the Trade
Board shall take into consideration the actual employment
condition in the section, as to whether there are more people
employed at the time of complaint than are needed to do the
work, and whether they or any of them can be spared without
substantial injury to the company. If it is found that the
section can be reduced without substantial injury, the Trade
Board shall enforce the principle of preference as contemplated
in the agreement."

The practical effect of this provision from the union
worker's standpoint is to minimize the shock and stress of
unavoidable unemployment for union members by shifting
the main burden of it to those workers who for any reason
have failed to join the union. Incidentally, the arrangement
supplies a solid inducement for many workers to come into
the organization who might not be amenable to less material

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 351

arguments. The motives impelling the employer to give
preference in lay-offs to non-union workers, thereby running
counter to the interests and rights of the union under the
agreement, are various. Frequently, non-union workers are
lower paid, as, for example, apprentices and other helpers
who are not members of the union. Their retention at work
while union men were laid off would constitute a violation
of the preference provision, and in case the employer was
guilty of bad faith, would warrant his discipline at the hands
of the Trade Board.

The situation is exemplified in a complaint172 brought by
the union against a firm on the ground of having laid off
two trimmers, members of the union, while a non-union boy
in the canvas section of the trimming room remained at
work. The firm contended that the " preference in lay-off "
provision applied to the section and not to the shop as a
whole; that canvas trimming was a distinct section at this
house. The Trade Board in its opinion overruled the firm.
It held that " the canvas section is to be regarded as a part
of the trimming room in applying the principle of * * *
preference in lay-off. The non-union worker should have
been laid off before union trimmers were laid off. The Board
directs the discharge of the non-union worker. If his place
is filled the firm is first to file requisition with the union."

Preference to union workers in lay-off does not, of course,.,,
protect such workers against lay-off in the event of a neces-
sary reduction of force greater than the number of non-
union workers employed in the section. In that event, how-
ever, preference must be shown to those union workers who
have been longest employed; those most recently taken on
are the first to become subject to lay-off. This elaboration
of the principle is embodied in a provision of the agreement
entitled " Preference of Seniority," which reads as follows :

" If in order to properly balance sections, a reduction of
force be required greater than can be secured by the laying off
of a non-union worker as provided for herein, then there may
be laid off those who are members of the union in the order
of their seniority who have been in the employ of the company

352 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

for a period of six months or less, provided that any exception-
ally efficient worker, or any especially valuable member of the
union may be exempted from the rule of seniority. Provided,
also, the company shall give notice to the chief deputy of its
intention to discharge under this clause, and if he fails to agree
the matter shall be referred to the Trade Board."

It follows from this provision that the effective initiative
which belongs to the management in the matter of lay-offs
affecting non-union workers only, is materially curtailed
when union workers are to be dismissed or when an excep-
tion is to be made in favor of some particular individual.
The union must be consulted in such cases and its consent
obtained. That failing, the Trade Board has to decide the
issue. In effect, the laying off of union workers under the
seniority rule is a matter for joint determination in every
case. The principle was decisive in a certain case,178 in which
the company appealed from a decision of the Trade Board
holding with the union that four men had been improperly
laid off and ordering their reinstatement with back pay.

In this case the company, needing to reduce the force to
a point that required the displacement of union men, had
proceeded to lay off four union trimmers. The union had
protested on the ground that a number of non-union men
were retained, contrary to the provisions of the agreement,
while the union men were let out. The company contended
that the retained men were virtually union members, having
filed their applications for membership, and by reason of that
fact had acquired the right to be treated as members by
virtue of the clause on " Union Membership " : " The pro-
visions for preference made herein require that the door of
the union be kept open for the reception of non-union
workers, etc." The company claimed under this clause that
" such application automatically becomes a membership,"
and that therefore it was justified in assuming they were
members of the union.

In deciding the contention in favor of the union, Mr.
Williams relied upon the explicit language of the " Pref-
erence of Seniority " clause. He ruled as follows :

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 353

" The chairman cannot agree to this interpretation (of the
company), which would enable one side to dispose of a case in
dispute without any judicial process whatever. The makers
of the agreement apparently foresaw difficulties of this sort and
provided a method of dealing with them, for the agreement
states * * * that ' The company shall give notice to the
chief deputy of its intention to discharge under this clause,
and if he fails to agree the matter shall be referred to the Trade
Board.' * * * The chairman cannot accept any * automatic '
interpretation of the open union clause, which would prevent a
disputed case being passed on by the Trade Board before action
is taken.

" The four men who were laid off should be reinstated with
back pay as directed by the Trade Board."

Among the necessary powers of management — necessary
in the interest of efficient administration of the factory — is
that of reorganizing sections and, if need be, abolishing them.
Such changes are usually the result of important innova-
tions in the character of the product, and sometimes in the
methods of production. Under such circumstances, the
problem of reconciling the conflicting interests of efficient
production and of the workers' claim to fair treatment has
to be met. It is recognized in the agreement under the
heading: "Abolishment of Section.— When sections are
abolished, the company and its agents shall use every effort
to give the displaced workers employment as much as possi-
ble like the work from which they were displaced, within a
reasonable time." This provision, with the relatively free
hand it leaves to management, does not, however, apply un-
less the section is entirely discontinued. Where merely a
reduction of section is involved, the freedom of management
is further limited by the principle of union preference, as
has been already shown. The application of this principle
to an entire shop is not specifically provided by the agree-
ment, but it seems to be implicit in the general clause re-
lating to preference in discharge. At any rate,, this has been
the construction placed upon the clause by the Board of
Arbitration in the following case.174

Factory " J " was discontinued by action of the company
and a dispute arose over the disposition of the workers in

854 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

that factory. It was understood that shop "X" would
occupy the premises vacated by Factory "J," and that it
would be enlarged, and thereby would take care of about
two-thirds of the Factory " J " workers, leaving the other
third without their usual place of work. The company pro-
posed to dispose of these workers according to the principle
of the " abolishment of sections," under which it would try
to put the displaced workers in other positions to the best
of its ability. The union held that under the principle of
preference the non-union workers should be first laid off
and the union people be given their places. The Trade
Board having authorized this preferential procedure, the
company protested against the decision and asked for a
review by the Board of Arbitration. Against the decision
it urged that the " Seniority " clause invoked by the Trade
Board had reference solely to the reduction of sections; that
it did not apply to a shop as a whole; that such an appli-
cation would be wrong and harmful and work injustice to
the organization (of the shop).

In deciding that the situation presented in this case prop-
erly came within the scope of the preferential principle, Mr.
Williams ruled as follows:

" The chairman feels that in the present case we are facing
practically a new situation. We have not before dealt with the
shutting down of a large factory and the displacement of work-
ers on a considerable scale. It is possible such a contingency
was not in mind when the * Preference of Seniority J clause was
adopted, and it may have been more specially designed, as
stated, for the reduction and balancing of sections. But the
situation is upon us. If it be contended that the clause is not
in point, then it is the business of the Board to provide means
adequate to deal with the situation in the spirit of the agree-
ment.

" As indicating the principle to follow we have a clear and
unmistakable guide in the language of the agreement itself
* * * It states : * Should it at any time become necessary to
reduce the force in conformity with the provisions of this agree-
ment, the first ones to be dismissed shall be- those who are not
members of the union in good regular standing.' This state-
ment is made without reservation or qualification, without re-

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 855

gard to section, shop, or place of employment. It is clearly
applicable whenever it may * become necessary ' to reduce the
force. The chairman cannot escape the conviction that there
is a reduction of force at the present time and that the union is
within its rights under the agreement in its claim for the dis-
missal of non-union people.

" With respect to the method of putting this principle into
practice, the chairman is not able to conceive any better order
for laying off people than that provided by the clause * Prefer-
ence in Seniority.' Whether or not it was intended for such
an occasion as the present, it has the advantage of the sanction
of both parties for something very similar, and if we want to
resort to so disagreeable a thing as a dismissal, we can prob-
ably find no way that is fairer or more acceptable."

The operation of the seniority principle as a method of
preference as between union workers on a basis of length""
of employment, is not defeated by previous transfers of
such workers within the establishment. In other words, a
worker is entitled to preference in lay-off under this prin-
ciple according to the total length of his employment with
the firm in question. This point is illustrated175 by the case
of Eva S , who had been laid off, as the union com-
plained, in disregard of her rights under the " Seniority "
provision. This girl had been employed by the firm as a label
sewer for several months after which she was transferred
twice to other sections. When it became apparent that her
section was permanently over-manned and had to be reduced,
the labor manager searched for other work that Miss S.
might do, but finding none, he informed the deputy of his
intention to lay the girl off. Under these conditions a lay-
off was within the rights of the firm. But after hearing
the evidence, the Trade Board found that the firm had not
applied properly the senority rule in laying off Miss S.,
for two of the three girls retained in the section had been
employed more recently than she. It appeared that the
selection had been made on the length of service in the sec-
tion rather than on the length of time employed by the firm,
as the rule clearly requires. The Trade Board, therefore,
directed that Miss S. be reinstated.

The principle of preference according to seniority in em-

356 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

ployment has its counterpart in preference according to
seniority in union membership. Though this latter rule is
not set down anywhere in the agreement, it has been deduced
from the most general principle of union preference under-
lying the agreement. Wherever the application of pref-
erence does not entail definite detriment to the interests of
efficiency, the presumption of the agreement is in its favor.
Under the caption, " Avoidance of Injury," the agreement
defines the limits within which claims for preference are to
be enforced. The clause reads as follows:

" Among the things to be considered in the enforcement of
preference are the needs of maintaining an adequate balance of
sections, of the requirements of the busy season, of the difficulty
of hiring substitutes, and the risk of impairing the efficiency of
the organization. The claims for enforcement of preference
and for avoidance of injury to the manufacturing organization
are to be weighed by the Trade Board, and the interests of both
claims safeguarded as far as possible, the intention being to
enforce preference so far as it can be done without inflicting
substantial injury on the company."

It was under this clause, as well as on the basis of a verbal
understanding between the cutters and the company, that
the petition of the union was originally brought for the ap-
plication of preference by seniority in union membership.
The understanding in this case176 was to the effect that the
temporary cutters employed that season, who had just be-
come members of the union, were to be subject to the lay-
off of men as non-union men. Owing to the novel principle
involved, the Trade Board referred the matter to the Board
of Arbitration for interpretation of the " Avoidance of
Injury " clause.

In presenting its case before the Board of Arbitration the
union contended that under the operation of the preference
clause as then administered, an old and valued member of
the union might be laid off and a recently acquired member
who joined only to get a job might he retained. It claimed
that this practice not only worked a substantial injustice to
the older member, but it also injured the union by failing

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 357

to recognize the value of long and faithful membership and
by giving preference to members of transient connection and
possibly sordid motives. The company replied that its inter-
est in the matter was purely that of efficiency, that in the
lay-off period it wanted to lay off the less efficient worker
and to retain the better one, and that it wanted as wide a
range of choice as possible for its selection. In this inter-
est it had exercised the choice given it by the agreement
without regard to their status in the union, and solely with a
view of retaining the better workers.

After due consideration of the arguments of both sides,
Chairman Williams ruled as follows:

" It appears that the adjustment of conflicting claims of
preference and efficiency has been left by the agreement in the
Trade Board, which in this case passes it on to the Board of
Arbitration. There being no specific direction on the point in
controversy, we must fall back on the general principles on
which the agreement is founded. The chairman before accept-
ing the office has stated these to be in brief, the strengthening
of the union and the promotion of efficiency. On page 13 of
the agreement, it speaks of * the intention being to enforce
preference as far as it can be done without inflicting substantial
injury on the company.'

" In balancing the claims of preference and efficiency in the
present instance, it seems to the chairman that it might be pos-
sible to grant the recognition of seniority in union membership
asked for by the union without inflicting substantial injury on
the company. They ask that those who have been members
of the union for six months or more shall have preference over
those who have been members for a shorter period and that in
case of a lay-off those with less than six months' membership
shall be the first to be laid off. This means to the chairman
to propose a reasonable disposition of the question of prefer-
ence by seniority of union membership and is accepted as such
by him. It is directed, therefore, that hereafter temporary
workers in, the cutting and trimming departments who have
been members of the union less than six months shall be laid off
before those who have been members six months or longer. In
case of a disagreement about the term of employment, the Trade
Board shall decide."

The union is directly concerned whenever any of its mem-
bers are laid off. As long as they are involuntarily out of

358 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

work they naturally look to the union for placement. The
union's burden and responsibility are the greater the more
of its members are unemployed and the longer they have been
idle. If the organization is informed in advance of a pro-
posed lay-off of union workers, it can sometimes make ade-
quate provision for them without loss of time on their part,
and in any event can assist them in finding employment else-
where. It is from considerations of this character that the
rule has sprung up requiring the management to give notice
to the union of such proposed lay-offs and to take counsel
with union officials with a view to reducing to a minimum the
unavoidable hardship to the workers concerned. This rule,
as we have seen, has the sanction of the agreement whenever
workers are to be dismissed under the " Preference of Senior-
ity " clause, but it is not explicitly made to apply to tempo-
rary lay-offs. The extension of the rule to such situations,
however, has been effected by special order houses. For
other houses, it has, as yet, only the support of the most ap-
proved usage and of several decisions of the Impartial Chair-
man. The following is a case in point.177

The union in this case complained that the firm had closed
its cutting and trimming room one Saturday and also laid off
three cutters without taking the matter up with the union.
The question of laying off three men had not been taken up
with the shop chairman until just before closing time Friday.
The right of the firm to close the shop or to lay off workers
was not questioned by the union. What the union objected
to was the manner in which the firm had handled the question.
The Trade Board recognized that there was no agreement
for ready-made houses as for special order houses covering
specifically the manner in which such questions were to be
taken up ; " nevertheless market practice and certainly good
management are in favor of advance notice to the union.
Short weeks on lay-offs present problems to the union as well
as to management. The problems should be approached in a
spirit of co-operation and not by arbitrary action on the part
of either. The lay-off of the three men appears to the Trade
Board to have been uncalled for and to have been handled

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 359

arbitrarily. The labor department was not consulted. The
shop chairman was not notified until just before closing
time." The Trade Board directed not only that the three
cutters be returned to the shop but also that they be paid for
time lost.

The employer's motive in failing to give advance notice
of an intended lay-off, where this is the case, usually resolves
itself into the fear that some or all of the workers might leave
his employ prematurely and refuse to finish out the work in
process. But such conduct on their part would not have the
endorsement of the union. On the contrary, if the employer
deals openly with the union, observing his responsibilities
with respect to preference, conference, etc., the union assumes
on its part a corresponding obligation. It undertakes to
keep his productive organization intact by refusing to recom-
mend for employment with other firms workers who quit
their places without notice. In view of this fact, and of the
general spirit of the agreement, the union has gained the
right to be consulted and notified beforehand whenever a
lay-off is contemplated by the employer. The principle of
advance notification has, indeed, received its broadest and
clearest confirmation on this ground of mutual responsibility
of the parties. To this the decision of the Board of Arbitra-
tion in the following case178 convincingly testifies.

In this case a firm, preparing to discontinue one entire
shop had dismissed three workers without previous notice
and others with inadequate notice. When the case came
before the Board of Arbitration, Chairman Tufts made the
following constructive ruling:

" The Board of Arbitration concurs with the Trade Board
on the point that this case is not definitely covered by the agree-
ment or by precedents in Hart, Schaffner and Marx. This pre-
cise contingency of a firm closing up an important part of its
business, was probably not in the minds of the parties to the
agreements. The question, therefore, is, may the firm act in
accordance with previous usage and discharge men without
notice (as in the case of the three workers first discharged in
this case), or with very short and indefinite notice, or does the

360 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

general character of present agreement between firms and union
justify a different view of responsibility.

" The question of usage has repeatedly arisen in hearings
before the Board of Arbitration for Hart, Schaffner and Marx.
The present chairman has ruled that although usage raises a
certain expectation and is, therefore, to be given due weight,
it is not to be regarded as final. The question whether a given
usage is reasonable may be raised. Usually, it has been the
union which has claimed usage ; in this case it is the employer.

" The Board of Arbitration holds that the older usage in
accordance with which neither employer nor worker had any
responsibility to the other after the end of a day's work is
not in the interest of the industry. It certainly may bear very
hard upon the individual worker. In the case in question some
of the workers were apparently given no notice whatever and
they were thus placed in a serious situation. It was not treat-
ing them with proper consideration to discharge them without
notice. It is possible that the firm might fear that all workers
would suddenly leave if it should become known that the firm
was about to close. This ought to have been taken up with
the union and an arrangement worked out by which the work
on hand could be finished up.

" It is stated by the Trade Board, and is not, so far as I know,
denied by employers, that the union has aided to a large degree
in stabilizing working conditions and preventing men from leav-
ing one firm suddenly to go to another for higher wages. There
has been, therefore, under this agreement, some increased respon-
sibility on the part of the union. This Board holds that it is
only proper that there should be an increase of responsibility
on the part of the employers. It is to be hoped that this par-
ticular situation will not often arise, but this Board holds that
for the future it must be clearly recognized that there is a
mutual obligation."

A large reduction in the working force of a firm such as is
entailed in the discontinuance of a shop or a factory, almost
inevitably involves the laying off of a considerable number of
workers. Short of a system of insurance against unemploy-
ment, which does not yet exist in the industry, such a crisis,
especially at a time of general business depression and in-
dustrial contraction, cannot be fully met by the union alone.
The burden is one that the industry — in this case the em-
ployer— should at least partly share. He does so in a small
measure by giving the workers and the union advance notice

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 361

of the proposed closing, as contemplated in the Tufts deci-
sion just quoted. But in a seriously depressed labor market,
even such notification is of little avail. A larger share of re-
sponsibility for the workers affected must be assumed by the
employer. What form this shall take in the absence of an
insurance fund, was the problem that the Board of Arbitra-
tion had to meet in the following case.179

The firm in this case, having no need for continuing one of
its two vest shops, decided to merge it with the other. This
would have involved the simultaneous displacement of a large
number of workers then employed by the firm. The em-
ployer's right of closing a shop as an administrative measure
cannot be denied under ordinary conditions. It serves the
ends of efficiency, which is one of the major purposes of the
agreement. But efficiency is not the only purpose. Of equal
if not greater importance is the maintenance of the rights of
the workers as human beings and in a sense partners in the
industry. In the language of the preamble: " On the part
of the workers it is the intention and expectation that they
pass from the status of wage servants, with no claim on the
employer save his economic need, to that of self-respecting
parties to an agreement which they have had an equal part
with him in making ; that this status gives them an assurance
of fair and just treatment, etc." The conditions in this case
were extraordinary, and the union challenged the firm's right
to close the vest shop suddenly without making some provi-
sion for the workers employed there. In meeting the issue
thus presented, Professor Tufts made the following notable
ruling :

" In general, this Board is always in favor of economy in
production, provided this can be secured without injury to
other more important interests. In the present case the Board
holds that we ought to be considerate of the conditions caused
by this very large reduction in work. Although we have as yet
no adequate means of caring for the burdens due to seasonal and
exceptional maladjustments, nevertheless, we ought not to ag-
gravate any of the necessary evils but ought rather to minimize
them. Assuming then, that the desirable thing is for many
of the vest makers to find work elsewhere, as rapidly as possible,

862 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

and very likely that for the younger workers this work will
be found in many cases in other occupations, the Board holds
that the company can well afford a slight additional expense for
the sake of avoiding the feeling of resentment so far as possible,
which follows when persons have entered employment supposing
it to be permanent and later find themselves out of work.

" The Board directs therefore that until October 1(5 weeks
later), the merging of the shops be suspended."

THI: UBRARY
OF THE
r OFflllltOlS

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 368

When in 1913 the principle of union preference was first
introduced in the relations of the clothing workers with the
firm of Hart, Schaffner and Marx, it was made to apply only
to the hiring of workers and to their dismissal. In other
dealings of the company with its employes, such as transfers
and promotions, the management was not in any way bound
to show preference to union members. But such preference
was of considerable importance to the union in its quest for
control. Without it non-union workers who had done
nothing toward building up the organization or toward
achieving the working conditions and standards shared by
them with the rest, might continue to enjoy privileges over
union workers whenever a transfer or promotion was in ques-
tion. Furthermore, the absence of any provision for union
preference at these points tended to defeat the object of the
preference provision in connection with lay-offs. The reason
for such a result is to be found in the ease with which non-
union workers could, at a time of reduction of force, be trans-
ferred instead of being dismissed, or could even be retained
in their places while union workers in the section were being
transferred to less desirable positions elsewhere.

The status of the early law on this subject of preference
and the way in which in a critical borderline issue it might be
stretched to cover even certain situations involving transfers,
is well shown in the case180 decided by the Trade Board, and
later, on appeal, by the Board of Arbitration, some time
during 1915. In the reorganization of a certain section it
became necessary to reduce the number of workers, and the
company removed the superfluous ones to other places. Of
those retained, one was a non-union girl, and the union
claimed that under the principle of preference she should
have been the one to be removed and a union girl retained.
The company maintained that this was a regular case of
transfer and under the agreement it was not required to show
" preference " in transfer but only in cases of hiring and dis-
charge. The union replied that this was not a case of trans-

364 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

fer but a case of lay-off, and as such came within the scope
of the preferential principle. The union pointed out that the
force in the department was permanently reduced, and that
while it was true that the workers had been offered other em-
ployment, in most cases it was of so disadvantageous a char-
acter that the workers could not make wages and in some
instances the workers had quit work and were without em-
ployment, so that in effect the removal amounted to a dis-
missal.

Basing his opinion on the facts as stated, Chairman Wil-
liams, of the Board of Arbitration, held " that elements are
present in this case that differentiate it from ordinary cases
of transfer ; that, in principle, it partakes more of the nature
of a lay-off than of a transfer, and in view of this preponder-
ance of the element of lay-off in the transaction the applica-
tion of preference may properly be asked for and granted.
The chairman does not find that the Trade Board has erred
in the matter, and is unable, therefore, to grant the appeal
of the company."

The union, however, was determined to extend the applica-
tion of the preferential principle to all cases of transfer and
promotion, regardless of the presence or importance in the
situation of any element of lay-off or of hiring. Accord-
ingly, in the later agreements with the firm of Hart, S chaff -
ner and Marx, the union secured the inclusion of the follow-
ing express provision bearing on the subject of

PREFERENCE IN TRANSFERS

" If it becomes necessary to transfer workers from one shop
to another, the non-union workers shall be the first to be trans-
ferred, unless at request of the foreman, union workers are will-
ing to go.

" Or if it becomes necessary in the judgment of the company
to transfer a worker from a lower to a higher paid section or
operation, it is agreed that union workers shall have preference
in such transfers. Provided, that nothing herein shall be con-
strued to be in conflict with the provisions relating to transfer
for discipline, and, provided that they are qualified to perform
the work required and that their departure from their section
does not work to the disadvantage of that section."

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 365

In the course of the six years that have elapsed since these
provisions were first written into the agreement, the propor-
tion of non-union to union workers has been effectively re-
duced. This process of unionization has gone so far that it
has deprived the preferential principle of some of its early
significance. Nevertheless, cases of discrimination continue
to occur in connection with transfers no less than with lay-
offs and hiring of workers. These are cases in which union
members receive at the hands of employers less favorable
treatment in comparison with non-members than under the
preference clause of the agreement they are entitled to. As
a rule, the discrimination is incidental and not deliberate, but
this does not diminish the need for vigilence and the assertion
of its rights by the union. A case in point is the following, of
recent occurrence:181

The union in this case protested against the transfer of
L. C., an inspector-tailor, from Factory " A " to " B " and
later to " R," and asked for his re-transfer to " A," and that
a non-union man in " A " be laid off. In support of this
request the union cited the general preference provisions of
the agreement relating to the lay-off of non-union men dur-
ing the slack season. In any event, the union maintained,
the rule regarding transfers provides that non-union workers
are to be transferred unless union workers are willing to go.
The company merely contended that C had suffered no loss
by his transfer to " B " or " R." At the time there were four
inspector-tailors in " A " who were non-union. The Trade
Board held that in view of this fact, " these men by the pro-
vision of the agreement are subject to lay-off or transfer
before union men. C could not be transferred while non-
union men were retained during the slack period. Nor could
he be transferred against his will while non-union inspectors
were available for transfer." The Trade Board accordingly
directed that C be retransf erred to " A." If this transfer
should overcrowd the section, non-union men were to be
laid off in sufficient number to relieve the overcrowded con-
dition.

Since transfer is preferable to lay-off, union workers are

866 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

entitled under the agreement to be transferred from an over-
crowded section if there are non-union workers that can be
laid off to make room for them. An illustration is found in
the case of Anna B.,182 who was laid off because of slack
work in Factory " B," where she had been employed. The
union had requested that she be transferred to Factory " R,"
where a non-union girl was employed at similar work. The
company objected on the ground that the agreement restricts
transfers because of overcrowded sections within each shop
and between separate factories. The complaint was then
brought to the Trade Board. The evidence showed that this
non-union girl had been hired without a requisition. In view
of this fact the Trade Board directed that the non-union girl
be dismissed and the place given to Anna B. The Board
further directed that Anna be paid for time lost between her
dismissal from " B " and her date of employment in " R."

Had there been no irregularity in the hiring of the non-
union girl, it is still probable that the company would have
been obliged to dismiss her to make room for the union girl
from another factory. On the other hand, the claim of a
union worker to preference does not extend to the point of
displacement of a non-union worker in another section. Nor
does it involve even the right of the union worker to be trans-
ferred to a section other than his own where there exists a
vacancy, unless he has the necessary qualifications to fill it.
These issues were tested and decided by the Trade Board183
in two instances, which are here summarized :

The first instance is that of J and K, who had been mark-
ing patches in Factory " L " when laid off. The union asked
that they be placed as floor boys, as there were two non-union
floor girls in " R," one in " J " and one at " L." The com-
pany objected that they could not be required under the
agreement to displace a non-union worker who was not em-
ployed in the same section. The Trade Board in this case
found the position of the company to be sound. It " cannot
[find in the agreement any provision as to preference which
would compel the company to dismiss non-union people em-
ployed in one section to make room for union people em-

ployed in another section. If J and K had been employed
as floor boys in " L " the union's claim for their employment
as floor boys elsewhere where non-union floor boys are em-
ployed would be sound, and the company could be required
to dismiss the non-union help in favor of the union workers.
That is not the case in the present instance. These two
workers were not employed as floor boys and they cannot get
benefit of the preference provision under the agreement."

The other instance is that of N, who had been marking
bolts when laid off. The company needed bottom sewers and
the union suggested that N, who had had a little machine ex-
perience, be given this work. The company refused on the
ground that this was a girls' section and N was not a regular
bottom sewer, and they were not compelled to put him in the
section. The Trade Board could find no authority in the
agreement to place N in the section of bottom sewers so long
as he was not a bottom sewer. " If he were a bottom sewer,
the union might have a claim, even though the section were a
section of girls."

Transfers that are in the nature of promotions involve, as
a rule, the shifting of a worker from one section or operation
to another where higher earnings are possible. The case just
cited makes sufficiently clear the proposition that preference
to union workers in transfers of this character presupposes
not only the existence of a vacancy and the employer's in-
tention of filling it but also the union worker's ability to do
the work of the other section. This may or may not imply
actual previous experience at the particular operation to be
performed. Experience with a related operation may in
some cases be adequate preparation. The minute division of
labor prevailing in the larger factories carries with it a high
degree of specialization on the part of most workers that pre-
cludes expertness in more than one or two operations. At
the same time, there are enough elements of similarity be-
tween a number of different operations to make transfer be-
tween them frequently practicable. The question of fact as
to whether or not a worker is " qualified " is to be deter-
mined by the employer. It is to be determined experiment-

368 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

ally, however, that is, with the presumption in favor of the
worker recommended for promotion by the union and other-
wise eligible under the agreement. An adverse decision by
the employer in advance of a trial for the candidate, may be
challenged by the union and appealed to the Trade Board,
like any other dispute under the preference provision of the
agreement. It was on this point that the decision of the
Trade Board in the following case turned:184

In this case the union asked for promotion of Ethel W.,
a sleeve lining sewer, to a position as cuff tacker in Factory
" L." The union claimed at the hearing that this girl had
spoken to the labor manager about the promotion, but in-
stead of obtaining the position the superintendent had given
it to a non-union girl. The labor manager testified that the
superintendent had given the other girl the place because she
had worked one time as a cuff tacker and was therefore ex-
perienced. The union cited the provision of the agreement
under the head of " Preference in Transfers " (see p. 364
above). They contended that this section required the com-
pany to give the position to the union girl. The company
contended that they were not required to give her the posi-
tion, as one of the provisions is that the worker seeking pro-
motion must be " qualified to perform the work required,"
and that in this case the girl was not qualified, as she had
never worked at cuff tacking. The union replied that
whether the girl were qualified or not could not be determined
until she had been tried on the job; that if no one were to be
promoted unless he was able to do the work, no promotions
could take place under the present sectionized system of pro-
duction, and the company's interpretation of the clause
would make the whole section ineffective, whereas it was
clearly the intention of the section to make promotion pos-
sible and that union workers should be given the preference.

The Trade Board, after considering the evidence and argu-
ments in the case, upheld the union's position. The chairman
ruled that the section of the agreement in question " was in-
tended to give the union workers preference in promotions,
that is, they were to be given first chance at the job, and if

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 369

they were found to be qualified, that is, were able to turn out
the work efficiently, they would be entitled to hold the posi-
tion. If the Trade Board were to accept the company's in-
terpretation, it would have to regard the provision : ' Quali-
fied to perform the work,' as a joker, which would rob the
entire section of any significance. If promotions could take
place only as workers were ' qualified ' in the sense which the
company urges, no one could be promoted, except on option
of the management, whereas this section was intended to lay
down a rule determining preference in promotions for union
workers." And in accordance with this opinion, the Trade
Board directed that the girl be given opportunity to do the
cuff tacking.

When preference in promotion is accorded to a union
worker over a non-union worker, as in the foregoing case,
the employer is not limited to any particular individual but
is, in general, free to choose which union worker to promote
to the position. In the case just presented, the company de-
murred against that part of the decision requiring it to give
the appointment to Ethel W., as against some other union
worker in its employ. In meeting this question as to whether
the company has liberty to select the girl who is to be pro-
moted, the chairman stated he did not find anything in the
agreement to limit the company in this respect. ' The in-
dividual to be promoted must be a union member qualified
to do the work and whose promotion will not work to the dis-
advantage of the section from which he is promoted. The
union holds that the first girl to make application for the pro-
motion is to receive it, but I find nothing in the section in
question to warrant this construction."

The employer's liberty of selection, however, even as be-
tween union workers, is not unlimited. It may not be used
in such a way as to entail unfair discrimination against in-
dividuals. There may even be said to be some recognized
grounds of preference as between one union worker and an-
other. Among such grounds of precedence are, as in the
matter of lay-offs, those of seniority in employment and in
union membership. The following Trade Board case illus-

370 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

trates not only this limitation on the employer's freedom of
selection for promotion, but also the application of the experi-
mental principle for determining the relative qualifications
of the union's candidate as against the firm's.

The union in this case185 complained against the employ-
ment of a man new on quality off-pressing, while an old man,
a former off-presser, was available for the work. The union
contended that the old employe, S., was a former off-presser
by hand, had done work of the required grade as a bushel-
man, and was qualified to press the quality work in question.
The company contended that in the selection of a man on
week work they were at liberty to select any man they
thought fit for the work, and further, that the man selected
was better qualified than S., who, the company claimed,
could not do the work. In adjudicating this issue, the chair-
man of the Trade Board held that " the people had a griev-
ance that ought to be determined on the merit of the two
men; that unless the new man was clearly a superior work-
man to S., the latter, as an old employe of many years, ought
to have whatever opportunity for advancement there might
be, the more so as he had been displaced as a regular off-
presser when the machines were introduced." Accordingly,
an examination of the work of each man was made. The re-
sult appeared to show that S. was at least of equal ability
with the new man as a presser, and the Trade Board there-
upon ordered that he be substituted for the new man on this
work.

Frequently, when transfers from one section to another
or from one shop to another are under consideration, the
principle of preference to union workers requires that the
management shall not proceed alone. Interests of workers
and of the organization are involved that can only be prop-
erly conserved by having the union join in the arrangement.
For example, where a question of precedence arises or as to
the conditions of the transfer, it is of importance even to the
employer that any suggestion of discrimination be avoided.
The participation of the union in fixing the terms under
which such transfers are to be carried out serves, on one

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 871

hand, to protect the interests of its members concerned. On
the other hand, it insures the management against subsequent
claims and complaints by workers who in the absence of such
union sanction might feel themselves disadvantaged by the
change. The impartial boards have recognized the need for
such joint control over critical cases of transfer in several
important decisions. An instance is the following:188

The firm of Hart, Schaffner and Marx proposed to dis-
continue one of its factories, in which several hundred work-
ers had been employed, and at the same time was planning
an extension of one of its other shops by adding about one
hundred workers. The union asked the Board of Arbitra-
tion that these additional people be transferred from existing
sections, and that the whole matter of transfers be placed
under the supervision of a committee. The chairman of the
Board thereupon directed that the whole matter of transfers
caused by the closing of the factory and the extension of the
shop in question be subject to revision and approval of a
committee consisting of Messrs. Marimpietri, Levy and Mul-
lenbach, and that any differences arising in the course of the
adjustment should be decided by Mr. Mullenbach.

The need for proceeding by joint agreement and consent
has been recognized even more clearly in the matter of trans-
ferring workers from one section to another. This need rests
upon the fact that except in times of ample employment in
the market, the union has an interest in controlling and re-
stricting such transfers in the interest of its unemployed
members, who would be available for filling vacancies. The
issue was presented to the Trade Board in a case187 involving
the question as to whether the company, without arrange-
ment with the union, might transfer a worker from one sec-
tion in one shop to another section in a second shop, or
whether the company must make requisition upon the union.
The Trade Board ruled that though " the agreement is not
specific on the point," a transfer between sections was " con-
trary to the agreement and to previous practice."

From this decision the company appealed. Before the
Board of Arbitration it maintained that it had the right under

372 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the agreement and had " times without number " exercised
the right of transfer from one section to another; that the
only limitation upon such right was that the worker should
not sustain uncompensated loss from it; and that the right
in question was essential to efficient management. The
union, on the other hand, stated that it had no objection to
transfer from one shop to another within the same section,
provided of course that no uncompensated loss was involved,
but that it did object to the transfer from one section to an-
other when it had workers out of employment. It contended
that no transfers from one section to another had been made
without requisition and without arrangement with the union.
The chairman of the Board of Arbitration, in agreement
with the Trade Board, found that the agreement does not
specifically provide for or prohibit the transfer of workers
from one section to another. However, he observed that the
right appeared to be implicit in at least one clause of the
agreement : " If it becomes necessary in the judgment of the
company to transfer a worker from a lower to a higher paid
section or operation, it is agreed that union workers shall
have preference in such transfers." In view of this clause
the chairman dissented from the Trade Board conclusion
that the arrangement entered into with the worker in this
case was " contrary to the agreement and to previous prac-
tice." He then rendered the opinion of the Board of Arbi-
tration, as follows :

" It must be said, however, that it is laudable for the union
to seek to have as many of its members as possible share in the
work available. That was its desire in this case. It is equally
proper for the company to wish to give those on its payroll as
continuous work as possible and to protect itself against the
tendency of a section of week workers to spread work when it is
slack. That was its object when in this case it arranged with a
union inspector-tailor to transfer him to a tailoring job in
another shop. Where there are two proper interests involved
the chairman feels that a matter should be worked out in a co-
operative way. Moreover, unlimited transfer from over-
crowded sections to others by individual agreement might lead
to the break-down of the section system assumed in lay-offs and
division of work in the slack season. No doubt, if there were

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 373

perfect freedom of transfer by the company, the union workers
would ask for the lay-off of non-union workers and that their
places be filled by the transfer of union workers from other sec-
tions. Because of these considerations, the chairman urges
that transfers from one section to another in the tailor shops
be made as arranged with the union."

The agreements in Chicago do not provide for the transfer
of workers between different houses or firms. Yet there are
situations that would make such transfers advantageous for
both workers and employers. This applies in particular to
the temporary shifting of workers from " ready-made " to
" special order " or tailor-to-the-trade houses. Each of these
groups of houses in the market has its own seasonal fluctua-
tions— its busy season and its lull — and these do not coincide
with the corresponding seasons of the other. Consequently,
when the ready-made manufacturers are at the height of their
production period, the tailors-to-the-trade have scarcely be-
gun operations for the season. And conversely, when these
shops are in full swing, the factories of the others are at the
end of their season and running more or less far below capac-
ity. At such times it was customary for many workers,
especially cutters, having been laid off in the ready-made in-
dustry, to seek temporary employment in the special order
branch of the industry, and vice versa, until the return of the
season in their own branch. It did not follow, however, in
all cases that they returned to work for their former em-
ployers. Instead, they might through the union or inde-
pendently secure places in other houses, in this way imposing
the costs of a high labor turn-over on the industry in general
and on the employers concerned in particular.

Out of this situation there arose, late in 1919, a desire on
the part of certain tailors-to-the-trade for an arrangement
by which temporary transfers of cutters from their own es-
tablishments to ready-made houses could be effected. The
demand for cutters in the market was such as to make it
doubly desirable for an employer to keep his force together
from one season to another, and this was the object at which
the arrangement aimed. Since the agreement did not speci-

374 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

fically cover this situation, the employers attempted to pro-
ceed directly in the matter. But the union interposed objec-
tion to this procedure on the ground of its interests and rights
under the preference provision of the agreement. The matter
came to an issue in a case brought before the Trade Board188
and decided on November 20, 1919. The case was instituted
by two firms, which may here be designated as E. & Co. and
S. & Co., which asked the Trade Board for a ruling as to their
rights under the agreement to effect a transfer of workers
between them. The -facts as set forth by these firms were as
follows :

"That S. & Co. ( tailors-to-the- trade) find that the present
volume and the immediate future demands of its business do not
justify the employment of its full number of cutters on full time.
The firm, however, wishes to be in a position to meet the de-
mands of its next busy season by expanding its force of cutters,
when the occasion justifies such action. In the meantime, it
wishes to make an arrangement with E. & Co. and possibly other
* ready-made ' houses for the temporary transfer of certain
cutters to such firms with the understanding that they will be
returned on request of either party.

" In accordance with such a plan of transfer the labor man-
ager of S. & Co. consulted four cutters in their employ who
have had experience in * ready-made ' houses. These men ex-
pressed a willingness to be transferred. The shop chairman
who was advised of and in sympathy with the proposal, went
with the four men to the union headquarters and asked for their
transfer. The deputy refused, saying in effect that if E. & Co.
wanted cutters they should have made a requisition to the union ;
that there were cutters then unemployed who were available.

Among the arguments advanced by the firms in support
of their plan of transfer were the following:

2. " That the proposed arrangement is beneficial to the
workers involved. It makes for a periodic expansion and con-
traction of the cutting force according to the demands of the
business at various stages of the season and makes for uninter-
rupted employment both to the workers transferred and to the
permanent force. It works toward the permanent employment
of the workers and against ' floating.'

3. " That it aids the employer in maintaining a stable and
permanent personnel, which is essential to highest production.

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 375

It is especially important to the * special order ' houses, which
are the smaller factors in the industry, to exercise some measure
of control over the supply of cutters which is trained for their
particular requirements.

5. " That the proposed arrangement is in accordance with a
long standing practice in the Trade and does not involve condi-
tions adverse to the interests of the workers which the agree-
ment is intended to rectify * * * "

The union in its argument maintained that in all cases
transfers of union workers must be approved by the union,
that when an employer desired additional help he must make
a requisition upon the union, that this was the Hart, Schaff-
ner and Marx practice, and that any other arrangement
would be unsatisfactory because the available work would
not be properly spread among the membership of the union,
which the organization was expected to effect.

In the course of his decision in the light of the arguments
advanced by both sides and of independent investigation,
the chairman of the Trade Board held that :

" The practice of the Hart, Schaffner and Marx firm does
not support the contention of the firms in this case that an em-
ployer * is not bound by the agreement to requisition the Union
for help when it is possible to secure union workers in some
other way.' The contention (5) that the arrangement pro-
posed in this case * is in accordance with a long standing prac-
tice in the trade ' is of no weight, for it was one object of the
agreement to effect a change in that practice and the part of
the agreement here involved was certainly given due considera-
tion in the conference and was not merely copied without a
knowledge that it involved a change from the past procedure
in securing help.

" The Trade Board holds that Article IV of the Agreement
(Preference) means just what it says. * * * It states that
' whenever the employer needs additional workers, he shall first
make application to the union, specifying the number and kinds
of workers needed.' It is left to the union to determine who of
those properly qualified and available shall be sent to fill the
requisition. But if the union for any reason fails within a rea-
sonable time to send workers as applied for, the employer is at
liberty to secure them in the open market as best he can.

" The Trade Board rules against the main contentions made
by these firms. Transfers must be made in harmony with the

376 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

clause in the agreement providing for requisition upon the
union when additional workers are wanted. The Board recog-
nizes, however, the importance of what is stated in contentions
2 and 3, as well as the importance of spreading work among
the union workers in the trade. It seems to the Trade
Board that a more definite understanding relating to transfers
should be agreed upon by the firms and the union. The repre-
sentatives of the union have offered at the hearing to make an
arrangement whereby a transfer will not result automatically in
a higher and relatively unfair wage when a man returns to his
regular place of work and to guarantee the return of men loaned
with its approval. This opens the way to secure much that the
firms desire to secure through transfers of workers."

The union's offer to insure employers against excessive
wage demands by individual workers returning after tempo-
rary employment by another house has reference to the way
in which the principle of wage maintenance in transfers
worked out in a time of strong competition for workers. A
worker might be employed by another firm for a short period
of time at an increased wage and then return to his former
position to receive at least this higher wage — a sum out of
proportion to what those who had been in continuous employ-
ment were receiving. If, therefore, after such temporary em-
ployment elsewhere, workers were to be required to return to
their places, not at the increased scale but at the rate previ-
ously received by them, such restraint upon the workers as
regards individual bargaining for wages could only be exer-
cised by the union. The employers were in need of the union's
cooperation in this matter, and the union offered it, together
with a guarantee to return the workers to their former places
by way of the union's employment bureau.

But the employers wanted more than this. They wanted if
^^ possible to eliminate entirely the union's intervention in
such transfers, and, failing that, to secure joint control with
the union over the selection of the workers. Accordingly a
month after the foregoing decision had been announced by
Dr. Millis, the firms appealed to the Board of Arbitration.
In their brief presented to the Board189 they raised the ques-
tion of strict interpretation as applied to Article IV of the

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 877

agreement. They claimed that the primary purpose of the
article on the preferential shop was to give members of the
union preference over non-union workers, and not to give
exclusive control over the allocation of labor to the union.
They further claimed that a strict interpretation of the sec-
tion in question with an exclusive control over the distribution
of employment in the hands of the union would preclude a
joint employment agency, which thej^ considered a fairer and
more efficient method of finding the right man for the right
place. They claimed further that the principle of collective
bargaining did not exclude all individual bargaining, for
otherwise the preface of the agreement relating to " the
establishment and maintenance of a high order of discipline
and efficiency " would be defeated, as the management could
exercise no function whatever in selecting the men whom it
needed for its various kinds of work, but would have to
depend entirely upon the judgment and wish of the union as
to whom it might employ. The firms, therefore, wished the
way left open for a joint employment bureau, and in particu-
lar asked for a ruling on the principle of strict interpretation,
6n employment of members of the union without requisition,
and on arrangement for transfer and release with individual
workers without the intervention of the union.

On behalf of the union Mr. Levin argued that the lan-
guage of the agreement was explicit and that if the proposed
practice of transfer were permitted two other provisions
would be nullified, namely that providing for the dismissal
of non-union help and that for equally dividing the work in
the slack season. He also stated that the firm was given a
trial period of two weeks in which it might decide whether
to retain any worker sent, and that the office of the union
undertook to exercise discretion as to the kind of workers to
be sent to a particular firm in order to select those who would
be best adapted to the methods and standards of that firm.

In rendering the decision of the Board of Arbitration in
this case the chairman made it clear that the principle of
broad as against strict interpretation of the agreement should
govern. He pointed out that wherever there was doubt as

878 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

to whether the words of the agreement expressed the definite
intent of the parties, or as to whether the case in question
was actually of the sort contemplated by the makers of the
agreement, the general purpose as set forth in the preamble
must be taken into account in construing the meaning of
particular sections. Proceeding from this principle, Dr.
Tufts ruled as follows:

" It is the opinion of the Board that the primary purpose of
this section (concerning the preferential shop) was to give pre-
ference to union over non-union workers, and that it would be
going beyond the clearly expressed purpose if it is interpreted
to provide for a complete and exclusive allocation of workers.
It is stated by the union that the firm still has some choice under
the clause as it stands, for the firm has two weeks in which to
give the workers a trial. It does not seem to the Board that
this fully meets the needs of efficient management. In former
times the attitude of the employer towards the requests by the
worker for some say as to the conditions of employment was:
* Here is the job; take it or leave it.' It savors of the same
exclusive attitude if the union should say to the employer who
desires to have some voice in selecting the particular kinds of
men which he thinks would be suited for his work : * Here are
ten men ; take them or leave them.' Instead of the former atti-
tude the agreement under which the parties are now working has
substituted conferences and joint action on a large number of
important conditions such as prices, etc. It would clearly be
._ more in accordance with the spirit and purpose of the agree-
ment to have similar joint action in the case of selecting work-
ers such as might be provided under a joint employment agency
or an employment agency supervised by the impartial ma-
chinery. The Board would therefore hold that the section
in question is not to be interpreted as giving the union such
exclusive control over the personnel of employes as to exclude
the setting up of such a joint bureau * * * . Giving all due
credit to the union for its desire to fit the workers to the
needs of the different firms, it does not appear to the Board
that its records and equipment are adequate for the purpose,
and the Board believes that any exclusive assumption of control
is less likely to be fair to both sides than a joint control * * *"

Up to this point the decision carried a concession, at least
in theory, to the empolyers' request for a recognition of the
principle of joint control of hiring for the purpose of future

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 379

negotiation. Over against this, the second part of the de-
cision constituted a denial of the employers' particular pro-
posal to deal directly with each other and with their indi-
vidual workers for purposes of transfer, instead of through
the agency or with the consent and cooperation of the union.
In other words, the principle of collective bargaining and
agreement was reaffirmed by the Board of Arbitration as
governing any arrangement of this character. The Board
continued :

" As to whether the principle of collective bargaining per-
mits the firm to make individual arrangements with the workers
for transfers, or to employ members of the union without re-
quisition, the Board would hold that such arrangement must
be subject to the general principle of collective bargaining.
So far as this Board is concerned it deals primarily with the
union as represented through its officials, on the one hand, and
with the firms as represented through their officials, on the
other. It must assume that the parties to the agreement are
the union and the firms rather than the individual workers or
the individual foremen, superintendents, or stock-holders.
Therefore any bargaining between individual members of the
union and individual foremen or others representing the firms
must be subject to the rules of their respective organizations
or to the authority granted by the union or the firms respective-
ly. Doubtless there are numerous practices involving individual
bargaining, but these must be regarded as subject to the author-
ity of the principals on each side, namely, the union and the
firms. Otherwise it would be quite impossible for the union
to be responsible for its men or the firms for their officials, and
it is a necessity for the proper working of the agreement that
there should be this responsibility on each side. In the case
of transfers in employment, it may very well be in the interests
of both parties that certain arrangements should be made for
getting men in successive years who have had previous experi-
ence with the houses, but such arrangement should be worked
out under a general plan agreed upon by both sides. The deci-
sion of the Trade Board recognizes certain desirable features
in such arrangements.

" In summary, therefore, this Board holds that the principle
of preferential shop is to be interpreted as providing for joint
rather than exclusive control over allocation of workers, and
for joint arrangement for such individual bargaining as may
be desirable, and would recommend to both parties the need

380 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

of taking up this matter and working it out in accordance with
the general spirit of the agreement and co-operation."

Following out this recommendation of the Board of Ar-
bitration and its own original suggestion, the union agreed
with the manufacturers upon a plan of transfers under joint
supervision. This plan provided for the release of cutters
from their employment during the slack period in the trade
to take employment temporarily with another house on the
understanding with the union deputy that they would re-
turn to their places at the request of the original employer.
By this arrangement the employer was assured of retaining
the services of cutters whose familiarity with the work in his
establishment made them particularly valuable to him. At
the same time the union was in a position to give or withhold
its sanction for the transfer of each and every cutter thus
released. And along with this control over the process, the
union assumed responsibility for the return of the worker
when needed, on the terms of his previous employment.

This responsibility of the union, where such a joint ar-
rangement had been entered into, is enforcible through the
impartial machinery, like any other phase of the agreement.
In one case190 a firm petitioned the Trade Board for the re-
turn of a cutter released on temporary transfer. In granting
the petition the Board stated " that the firm has reason to
expect the cutter to be returned because of the general prac-
tice, the promise made' by the cutter at the time he left and
the promise of the deputy to see to it that all of the cutters
named on the list presented to him, this man among them,
would be returned at the beginning of a new season."

Where no joint arrangement is made by the employer
? with the union for the transfer and subsequent return of the
cutters in his employ, the union is under no obligation to see
to it that such cutters return. They are free to remain in
their new position or to seek employment elsewhere and the
union is at liberty to send them out on requisitions in the
order of their application. Formally, it is true, the employer
is not prohibited from individual bargaining with the workers
in reference to their temporary release and later resumption

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 881

of their places. But when he resorts to this method he does
so on his own responsibility and cannot expect the union to
enforce the arrangement in his favor. An illustration is at
hand191 in the refusal of the union to sanction the return of
a certain cutter, who had been previously released with prom-
ise to have his job back on his return. The union not having
been a party to the arrangement, declined to recognize it and
considered the cutter as having quit his position with that
house. He could return there only by making application
to the union office for employment. In disposing of the
firm's complaint in this case, the Trade Board held that
' The union was clearly within its rights in insisting that
this man take his turn with other cutters. The proper course
in case of a temporary release is to have a joint understand-
ing and to make arrangements accordingly. For the union
to observe any other rule than that of placing workers and
filling requisitions in order of application is to leave the way
open for charges of preference and destroy all confidence in
its employment office. The only exception that can be made
to this rule is when arrangements are made at the time of
leaving."

382 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

EQUAL DIVISION OF WORK

One of the objects sought by the union through larger con-
trol over the hiring, lay-off and transfer of workers, is to
insure a more equitable distribution among its members of
the opportunities for employment in the industry. The
principle of the preferential shop is of direct assistance to
the union in this endeavor to lighten the burden of unem-
ployment for its members. In the case of hiring, we have
seen how union preference operates to allocate union workers
to jobs in their order of application. Those longest out of
work, other things equal, are first to be placed. In the mat-
ter of lay-offs on account of over-crowded sections, non-
union workers are the first to go, thus leaving the available
work to be divided among union workers and to that extent
reducing the burden of unemployment within the organiza-
tion. When union workers have to be laid off, the order is
determined by seniority in employment and in union mem-
bership, and the organization has an opportunity to coop-
erate. When union workers are to be transferred, not only
are their standards maintained but in the case of transfers
between sections and between firms, at any rate, the union is
given a voice in the arrangement. It is insofar enabled to
protect the interests of its unemployed members, as in the
cases last cited.

But the efforts of the union to conserve and to spread
work among its members are not limited to the enforcement
of preference under the agreement. They extend to the
application of another principle: that of the equal division
of work during slack seasons. If a given amount of idle-
ness unavoidably falls on union workers at such times, it is
obvious that the sharing of the burden among a larger num-
ber of them makes it easier to bear for each and all. On
this point the agreement provides as follows : " During the
slack season the work shall be divided as near as is practicable
among all hands." This provision is of far reaching signi-
ficance and is one of the most important steps achieved by
the union in the direction of stabilizing as well as equalizing

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 383

employment. It places responsibility upon the manufacturer
for keeping all union workers in his employ at least par-
tially supplied with work as long as his shops remain open.
And by making the provision enf orcible through the impar-
tial machinery, the agreement prevents discrimination on the
employer's part between workers as regards their individual
share of the total work that is to be done.

The practical significance of the rule of equal division of
work, moreover, is heightened by the application to it of the
principle of preference. Thus, non-union workers are not
entitled to the benefits of the rule, i. e., they may not share
in the work in the shop at such times. As part off the original
decision of August 30, 1913, interpreting the principle of
preference,192 this point is covered in part by the following
provision :

" If it becomes necessary to reduce the force in the tailor
shops during the slack season in order to give a reasonable
amount of employment to the workers who are retained, the
Trade Board may order such reduction under the conditions
hereinafter mentioned. The principle of preference to union
members shall be applied in any reduction that may be made
and the method of making a reduction on account of the slack
season, shall be as follows :

" The Company shall, in its discretion, initiate a lay-off
whenever it deems the condition of the shops requires it.

" Should it not exercise its power in such a manner as to pre-
vent overcrowding of sections, the Chief Deputy shall, if he
deems it necessary, make application to the company for the
required reduction of sections, and if it fails to comply, he shall
appeal to the Trade Board which shall decide whether or not
the section is overcrowded as charged. In deciding the ques-
tion of overcrowding, the Trade Board shall take into considera-
tion the claims of the company for protection of its organiza-
tion, while giving effect to the principle of preference * * *."

In applying the rule of equal division of work, elements
of conflict constantly arise between the interests of the em-
ployer and those of the union. On one hand, the employer
would restrict as far as possible the operation of the rule of
preference in this connection, which obliges him to dismiss
non-union workers whom he would otherwise retain. On

384 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the other hand, the employer frequently prefers, when work
is slack, to cut down overhead costs by reducing his person-
nel, especially those on week work, and dividing the avail-
able work among a smaller number of people of his own
selection. It is at this juncture that the union's insistence
on an equal division of work among all his union people pre-
vents some of these from being thrown entirely out of em-
ployment at the very time when jobs are hardest to find.
A typical case of this kind193 is that of a firm which at-
tempted to discharge a number of its workers who could be
spared during a period of acute depression in the industry.
The firm claimed that the obligation to divide work equally
during the slack season was not applicable to existing con-
ditions. The Trade Board, however, refused to release the
firm from responsibility for continuing to give employment
to all its union workers, unless further investigation should
show that such a course would prove to be impracticable.

The apparent conflict between the right of the employer
under the agreement to lay off union workers when neces-
sary to reduce sections, and his obligation to divide the work
equally among all of them is responsible for many complaints
by the union under the provision in question. But the con-
flict is in most cases only apparent, not real. The right to
dismiss union workers applies merely in situations calling
for a permanent reduction of the force, not to seasonal slack-
ness in trade. When the nature of the situation is in dispute
it is left to the Trade Board to decide. Thus we have the
case of one O,194 a pocket maker, in whose behalf the union
complained that he had been discharged without cause.

At the hearing the union maintained that this worker had
been discharged in violation of the clause in the agreement
providing for equal division of work during the slack season.
The firm contended, on the other hand, that under another
section of the agreement it had a right to discharge union
men whenever necessary, provided that any non-union men
were laid off first. It contended, furthermore, that it was
judge of when a situation made it " necessary " to discharge
a worker or workers. It contended, finally, that a reduction

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 885

of the number in the section involved in this case was
" necessary " in order to prevent the workers (all on week
work) from " going slow " and thus keeping themselves in
full employment.

In deciding which of the two contending principles was
applicable in this case, the chairman of the Trade Board
stated :

" The evidence shows that this man was not discharged for

* cause,' but merely because the number of pocketmakers was
larger than needed to do the work available during the slack
season. The Board rules that one section, of the agreement
provides explicitly as to how such situations shall be met:

* During the slack season the work shall be divided as nearly as
is practicable among all employes.' The particular problem
here involved being covered fully and explicitly by this provi-
sion, other and more general provisions of the agreement do not
apply. With reference to the contention that if all are re-
tained, the workers may then * go slow ' to keep themselves in
full employment, the Board merely points to the fact that the
firm would in such an event have ground for a complaint of
restriction of output and could ask for appropriate action.

" This ruling does not mean that a firm may not seek to
remove from its payroll workers not needed during the slack
season. It may quite properly seek through the union to have
those not needed placed in jobs elsewhere. If such an effort
fails, however, the available work is to be divided as indicated
above."

The Trade Board accordingly ordered the pocket-maker
to be reinstated.

Not the least significant feature of the foregoing decision
is that which makes the cooperation of the union essential
for any reduction of force in the slack season, so far as it
involves union workers. Until the union can find places
for such workers elsewhere, the responsibility for keeping
them employed on equal terms with other workers remains
upon the management. The principle underlying this de-
pendence of the employer upon the union for relief from a
temporary surplus of week-workers is the same as that gov-
erning the transfer of cutters and trimmers between dif-
ferent firms in the market.

386 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

The equal division of work in the slack season is a right
guaranteed to union workers by the agreement, that cannot
be defeated by any general powers of management in con-
flict with it. It is a right that takes precedence not only
over the employer's right of reducing sections or closing
shops temporarily but also over his power of discipline. This
is the meaning of a Trade Board decision195 in the case of a
worker who was laid off as discipline for burning a garment
in pressing. The firm in this case claimed that under the
agreement it had the full right of discipline and discharge,
and as a measure of discipline the firm had a right to refuse
to give work to one who had carelessly damaged a garment.
In the opinion of the Trade Board, however, " the scope and
nature of the discipline the company may inflict is limited
by the terms of the agreement. It does not seem permissible
for the company of itself to inflict discipline that means the
suspension of one of the clauses of the agreement as the one
requiring equal division of work."

The only limits placed by the agreement upon the appli-
cation of the rule for dividing work equally are the limits
of practicability. When this exception is invoked by the
employer, the burden of proof rests upon him, and the Trade
Board decides upon the merit of his contention. In a case188
bearing on this point the union had requested that C, a
man employed in the under-collar department, should share
equally with the cutters in their temporary lay-off between
seasons. The company objected to laying him off on the
ground that he was the only man who could cut under-collars
efficiently with the up-and-down machine, and also on the
ground that he had not been having equal lay-offs with the
cutters in the past. The record bore out this latter conten-
tion of the company. In view of the fact that C had had no
lay-off for over five years, although lay-offs had taken place
in the cutting room during that time, the Trade Board found
that C was not required to accept lay-offs along with the
cutters. ;< Usage has established his status."

In practice, the equal division of work may be interfered
with by an attempt of the employer to introduce overtime

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 387

work in any section or department in which some workers
are temporarily on lay-off. It is a well known policy of the
union to discourage overtime work by some of its members
while others are unemployed. But, under certain conditions,
overtime work may be necessary in the interest of maintaining
the balance of sections or the flow of work through the shop.1
To make such overtime possible while at the same time pre-
venting its abuse and providing against its interference with
the equal division of work among all the people entitled to
such work, the Trade Board has laid down the following
rules:197 (1) " That overtime shall not be resorted to for the
purpose of increasing the normal capacity of the shop so long
as any of the workers are laid off; (2) that where a section
falls below the normal so as to disturb the balance of the shop
and to make it necessary for other sections to wait for work,
overtime is permissible; and (3) that where a given section
works overtime, those of that section on lay-off shall be given
equal opportunity to work overtime when they return from
lay-off."

. The equal division of work in slack season may be ef- ,.,
fected in a variety of ways. Workers may be employed
either short days, i. e., a reduced number of hours every
day, or short weeks, i. e., a reduced number of days in the
week. They may be rotated in lay-off, on the principle of
successive shifts, or they may be transferred through the
intervention of the union from one shop to another, or
finally from one firm to another. In the last case, the
process of equalizing work is extended by agreement from
an individual house to the market as a whole. The particu-
lar method of sharing work most acceptable to both sides
at any given time and place varies according to circum-
stances. So that an arrangement that satisfies the workers
in one shop or season may raise decided opposition in an-
other. The curtailment of work and earnings that is neces-
sarily involved when any division of work is put into effect
is in itself a sufficiently unpleasant fact for the workers
concerned. If, then, the division is such as to leave any
ground for doubt as to its equality, if any of the workers

388 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

feel that the arrangement works out to their disadvantage
as against their fellows, mere discontent becomes resent-
ment, and the workers have a grievance for which it is the
function of the union to seek redress.

Because of this direct responsibility of the union toward
the people in connection with the equal distribution of work
in slack season, the need for management to secure the
consent of the union to any proposed scheme of distribu-
tion has come to be recognized. The matter of giving prac-
tical effect to the rule requiring work to be divided has
thus become one for joint conference and agreement in
advance. As early as 1915 this solution of the problem was
urged by Mr. Williams in an arbitration decision198. The
dispute in the case before him turned on the question of
how the provision of the agreement was to be applied in a
particular situation; and out of this arose the broader ques-
tion of procedure in such cases.

In a certain section of off-pressers the company had di-
rected that this provision be enforced by laying off two
workers in turns, thus giving the workers an equal number
of days in the shop. The union contended that this plan,
while it secured equal division of lay-off, did not secure
equal division of work; that owing to the variable output
of the factory some days were more favorable than others,
with the result that some earned several dollars per week
more than others; that the off-pressers preferred to come
into the factory each day and share equally such work as
came in, and that they should not be deprived of a method
they liked and to which they were accustomed when such
a practice involved no expense to the company. The Trade
Board having ruled that " all people be at work unless by
special agreement some other arrangement is made," the
company appealed on the ground that " no unnecessary
limitation be put on the management " which should cause
an " unnecessary strain upon the harmonious relations be-
tween the union and the company."

In adjudicating the issue of jurisdictional rights thus
presented to him, the chairman of the Board of Arbitra-

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 389

tion ruled that the principle involved in this case of division
of work was similar to that discussed in his " Decision on
Joining Sections."11 In this latter decision he had held:
" This right like others not specifically limited by the agree-
ment, inheres in the company; but it is to be exercised in
such manner as not to infringe on the rights of the workers."
On the present occasion he reiterated this principle, saying
that the company may exercise its right of initiating
changes in the organization of work in the shop by admin-
istrative order, as recognized in previous decisions, but must
not invade the rights of the workman in so doing. " Any
such act if it causes a complaint is subject to review." But,
in conclusion, the Chairman went further than this. He
stated :

" In view of the discontent and injury to the good relations
between workers and company which need to be sedulously cul-
tivated and maintained, the chairman strongly recommends that
the company confer with the representatives of the workers
before initiating any changes likely to be objected to as in-
jurious by those they are designed to affect. Such a conference
becomes imperative when established wages or practices are
affected by the proposed change."

The rule requiring the equal distribution of work in slack
season applies not merely to the workers in a given sec-
tion, or even to the tailor shop as a whole, but to all the
workers in all the shops of a given firm. Thus, if a firm
has two tailor shops, the Trade Board has ruled that the
division of work between the two shops should be equalized
as regularly as possible in order to avoid dissatisfaction.
In one such case199 the Board proposed that the problem
be met by a conference between the firm and the union. At
the same time the Board suggested the transfer of some
of the workers from one shop to the other by joint ar-
rangement, as a possible way of sharing the work equally
among all.

In another case,200 the firm with the consent of the union,
had divided its Shop No. 5, to establish Shop No. 6 with
half of the workers from No. 5. Later the union com-

390 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

plained that the workers in Shop No. 6 had not received
as much work as those in Shop No. 5. On the basis of
data showing the distribution of work between the two
shops, the Trade Board decided that " the shops must be
kept distinct with approximately the same amount of work
over a given period of time or reunited and put on the
previous basis. The division of Shop No. 5 was certain
to lead to dissatisfaction if those who were transferred did
not have the same opportunity for employment as those
who continued in Shop No. 5. This does not mean hair-
splitting exactness with respect to hours or earnings, but
it does mean approximate equality. With these considera-
tions to guide, the chairman suggested a conference be-
tween the firm and the union.

The rule for dividing the work equally between different
tailor shops of the same firm applies, furthermore, not only
to inside shops directly controlled by the manufacturer, but
to outside or contract shops as well. The status of con-
tractors and of the workers employed by them in relation
to those directly employed will be dealt with in a subsequent
section. At this point it is sufficient to state that union
workers in approved contract shops are on an equal basis
with the firm's own employes as regards their right to share
the work in slack season. In a case in point,201 a firm had
sent out some of the work done formerly by one contractor
to a second contractor who also employed union people
and maintained the market rates of wages. No complaint
had been made by the union for two months after the change
was made, thus leaving the inference that it was agreeable.
The Trade Board held that although the firm was under
obligation to provide work to the people employed by the
first contractor, those in the second contractor's shop had
developed a similar interest, and claims to the work. And
the chairman ordered the work to be divided between the
two contractors as it had been prior to the complaint.

Even where the several shops of a firm are engaged in
producing different styles of garment — such as overcoats
in one, and sack coats in another — the claim of the workers

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 391

in these shops to share between them whatever work the
firm may have, has been recognized. Thus it happens that
at the beginning of the light-weight season, when no more
overcoats are to be manufactured, a firm may deem it eco-
nomical to close temporarily the shop which is specialized
for the production of these winter garments. There seems
to be nothing in the agreement to prevent the firm from
discontinuing even temporarily a department of its busi-
ness for which there is no more need, by laying off the
workers in that department with due notice in advance,
and without discrimination. But if these workers are quali-
fied to do the work of a related department which continues
in operation, and especially if they have on previous occa-
sions shared in the work of the other department, there is
ground for their claim to share in the work again.

A case of this character202 came up before the Trade
Board in the form of a petition by a firm for a ruling as to
its right under the agreement to " temporarily close down
our overcoat shop due to the fact that we have completed
our overcoat manufacturing program for this season and
will not have work for several weeks." In support of its
position the firm contended that the workers in the overcoat
shop had during the past year enjoyed more hours of pro-
duction and greater pay than any of the other shops. For
this reason, the firm maintained, to close its overcoat shop
temporarily would not be an infringement or violation of
the equal division of work clause in the agreement. The
union, on the other hand, contended that past practice
should continue; that the agreement was for the clothing
industry, not for the sack coat or overcoat industry; that
as a rule workers made more on overcoats than on sack
coats; that hours worked in the overcoat shop were inci-
dental to the season; and that the practice in the market
was to go from overcoats to sack coats, or vice versa.

The Trade Board in deciding this case in favor of the
people, held that " the interests of management, apart from
practice or the rights of the workers, make it inadvisable
to close the overcoat shop as contemplated and disrupt the

392 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

working force. However, the Board does not make this
the basis for its ruling. Overcoat workers have been given
sack coats during the slack season in the past and are en-
titled to share the work now * * *."

A more difficult problem from the standpoint of the
worker's claim to an equal share of the work is presented
in the event of a more permanent contraction of business,
such as would ordinarily lead to a reduction of the force.
Even then, however, the principle of equal division has
gained recognition as being preferable to outright dismissal
in disposing of union workers in a time of depression. The
issue arose in a typical case203 where the firm had aban-
doned one of its two coat shops without making any pro-
vision for the workers formerly employed therein. The
union requested the Trade Board to order the firm to make
room for all of its coat shop employes so that they might
share equally in its work. Both the shops (No. 1 and No.
7) had been closed during the slack season. The firm, fail-
ing to reach an agreement with the union on the permanent
discontinuance of one of them, reopened shop No. 1 but
kept No. 7 closed at the beginning of the new season.

At the hearing the union contended that all of the
workers employed in Shop No. 7 must share equally in the
firm's work, be that much or little. It based this claim on
the clause of the agreement providing for equal division of
work in slack season, and on the practice at Hart, Schaff-
ner and Marx when shops have been merged. The firm,
objecting to the union's suggestions for keeping all the peo-
ple employed, contended that under the agreement it was
not required or expected to go beyond what was practicable
in the division of work. It also pointed to a paragraph in
the agreement reading: " Should it at any time become
necessary to reduce the number of employes, the first ones
to be dismissed shall be those who are not members of the
union." And by direct implication, the firm argued, it had
the right to discharge members of the union when it became
necessary to reduce the number of employes.

The chairman of the Trade Board rejected this view of

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 393

the firm's rights in the matter. He stressed, on the con-
trary, its responsibilities. Referring to an earlier Trade
Board case, dealing with a similar situation, he quoted from
it as follows: "All Trade Board and Board of Arbitra-
tion decisions bearing upon the matter have been to the
effect that some degree of responsibility has been developed
for all union workers brought into the trade and employed
by a firm so long as the firm continues to manufacture
clothing." The chairman then stated that " all cases thus
far coming up in connection with the closing and merging
of shops have been settled (by agreement except in two
instances) in the light of this principle, all union workers
being continued in employment unless it was impracticable
to do so. The present case has been approached in the
same way."

The evidence presented at the first hearing on this case
convinced the Trade Board that it was not practicable to
continue shop No. 7 or to enlarge shop No. 1 as suggested
by the union, and that the firm's obligations to its workers
under the agreement did not extend that far. On the other
hand, the Board felt that something more than had been done
was called for, especially at a time " when employment in
the community presented a problem not to be enlarged if it
could reasonably be avoided." It therefore called for exact
data on what had been done in transferring workers to shop
No. 1 and on what possibilities of employment this shop
afforded. The data presented at the second hearing showed
that somewhere between 50 and 60 of the original 118
workers from shop No. 7 would remain unprovided with
jobs and individual stations even after vacancies in shop No.
1 had been filled and certain additions by transfer made.
With reference to these the chairman announced the follow-
ing decision:

" The Board is of the opinion that no arrangement can be
made for their employment that will not be open to some objec-
tion by them, their fellow workers, and the firm. Nevertheless
it feels that the situation is such that they should be given a
chance to share the firm's work by * rotating ' with the others in

394 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

the sections in which they have worked. The chief difficulty
involved in this from the workers' point of view lies in the fact
that two or more operators in rotation will in a few cases make
use of the same machine. To meet the problem of adjustment
required the Board rules that each operator going on or return-
ing to a machine used by another in this rotating process, shall
have hour work for the first two hours.

" This arrangement for a merger of the two shops, is a make-
shift. It is recognized that quitting for better jobs will before
long reduce numbers to those needed to man the shop. The
process will not give the best possible selection of workers and
may be open to other objections by the firm. The payment of
a limited amount of hour work in a few cases will cost a little.
The firm, however, has responsibilities to the workers which
should and must be met, though not convenient. The Trade
Board regards the arrangement * * * as practicable, the
situation being what it is, and called for by the agreement,
which provides that * During the slack season * * * the
work shall be divided as nearly as is practicable among all em-
ployes.' '

The principal method recommended by the Trade Board
in the foregoing case for equally distributing the work is that
of transferring workers from one shop of the firm to another.
This method combines the economy of reduced overhead
costs to the manufacturer with the advantage to the workers
of sharing on an equal basis, at least temporarily, in what-
ever work there be. Such an arrangement is sometimes made
by voluntary agreement between the employer and the
union, and in that case the matter does not come up before
the impartial machinery unless one side or the other fails to
live up to its engagements. Thus in the following case,204
in which the union charged that the firm had not carried out
arrangements to transfer the people from shop No. 1 to
shop No. 4. The people in shop No. 1 had been laid off,
while those in shop No. 4 were working. After conference
with the union the firm had agreed " that the work was to be
made in shop No. 4 and that we would transfer shop No. 1
workers to shop No. 4." The complaint of the union was
that after a lapse of more than three weeks, a considerable
number of people formerly in shop No. 1 were still out, and

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 395

further that the firm was reported as considering sending
work out to contractors. The Trade Board ruled as follows
on the action of the firm:

" The agreement cited above contemplated the transfer of
shop No. 1 people if and when there was work for corresponding
sections in shop No. 4. In other words, if the people in any
section in shop No. 4 were working the people from the corres-
ponding section of shop No. 1 were to be called back at once
to share whatever work was in shop No. 4. The Board under-
stands that sections in shop No. 4 have been working and that
people from like sections in shop No. 1 have not been called
back. In the degree that this is correct the firm has violated
the intent of the agreement and is to be censured for it. The
firm is directed to carry out the agreement at once. Procras-
tination in matters of this sort breaks down the spirit of
negotiation and leads to unnecessary litigation. The Board
would state further that to send work out to contractors in the
light of the circumstances noted would work an injustice that
the firm could scarcely defend before the Trade Board."

When, subsequently, the union requested the Trade Board
to order payment for time lost by workers from shop No.
1 in consequence of the firm's dilatoriness in transferring
them the impartial chairman directed that:205

" An equitable arrangement will be to give the workers in
question an opportunity in connection with lay-offs to make up
the time lost. If they had been transferred promptly they
would have had some of the work that has been done by others.
It will be fair now to give the others a greater amount of lay-
off, that these few may have their share of work * * * The Board
is of the opinion, moreover, that the firm can well afford to
permit the representatives of the workers to share in the respon-
sibility of lay-off arrangements and that less disaffection will
follow such a course of action. This does not subtract from
the powers of management. Rather, it helps to fix respon-
sibility and to make control effective."

The apportionment of lay-off periods as a method of
equalizing work in slack season is most commonly applied to
week workers, notably to cutters and trimmers. Since their
earnings are not immediately affected by the flow of work
from day to day, an equal division of time is at least as
equitable from the standpoint of earnings as a strict division

396 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

of work would be. Moreover, a lay-off extending over a
week or two at a time may be utilized by the worker as a
vacation period or otherwise, while a shorter work day or
work week does not offer corresponding compensations.
Notwithstanding advantages of this nature on the side of a
lay-off system of dividing work, the sentiment of the workers
may in a given situation be opposed to it. We have already
met with such an attitude in the case of the off-pressers cited
above (p. 388). The determination of what particular
method is to be used cannot, therefore, be left entirely in
the hands of the employer. Although in connection with
the case198 referred to, Mr. Williams had recommended con-
ference between the parties whenever interests of both were
involved, the claim of management to sole jurisdiction in
these matters has not been entirely relinquished.

In a fairly recent case before the Board of Arbitration206
the representative of the firm asked for a definition of their
rights with reference to the equal division of work in slack
season. They claimed it was the function of management
to administer this equal division by any method which would,
in the judgment of the management, give the best results, as
by rotation of lay-offs, by shortening the day or week, or
by shutting down the whole shop for a period. The Board
of Arbitration ruled that the method of administering the
equal division was " both a matter of management and a
matter of convenience to workers. Neither is absolute. In
case an agreement cannot be reached between the firms and
the union, upon a method which will satisfy both of those
interests, the case is to be referred to the Trade Board."

Despite this and the earlier ruling, however, some em-
ployers persist on occasion in instituting independently some
particular form of division of work, instead of previously
consulting the union and securing its approval for the ar-
rangement. In such instances the union obtains redress
through the Trade Board. This was the procedure followed
in the 'case of a firm207 that according to the union's com-
plaint, had issued orders that the shop would close Satur-
days. The firm stated at the hearing that the order was the

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 397

result of business conditions; that the cutters and trimmers
were rotating lay-offs and the people in the tailor shop were
working short time or rotating lay-offs, but that even with
this arrangement there were not enough orders coming in
to work the full week. The union contended that any pro-
posed change in lay-off arrangement should be taken up in
conference. While insisting that employment should be for
a full week at a time whatever the system of rotation, the
union suggested that if the firm wished to shut down Satur-
days payment should be made for a full week and overtime
be worked during the busy season so that earnings would be
spread more evenly over slack and busy times.

In his decision in this case Chairman Squires, besides
recommending a conference between the union and the firm
with a view to working out a more satisfactory arrangement
for equalizing employment, rendered the following opinion
on the broader issue:

" The Trade Board feels that the right amount of coopera-
tion should make for an arrangement that will recognize and
protect the interests of the firm and the workers. Neither the
firm nor the union can escape the burden of slack seasons, but
it should be made as easy as possible. Market practice is not
uniform with respect to lay-offs. In some cases the short week
will cause more dissatisfaction than a rotation arrangement
even though the earnings in the aggregate are unaffected. The
firm is expected to meet the convenience of the workers in the
matter of lay-offs so far as it is not inconsistent with efficient
management."

The responsibility of the employer for alleviating the
necessary evil of seasonal unemployment for his workers
finds its most effective expression through his co-operation
with the union in putting into practice the rule for an equal
division of work.

398 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

DIVERSION OF WORK

The operation of the equal-division-of-work rule under the
preferential principle carries a further implication that has
yet to be considered. We have thus far given attention
chiefly to the rule as it stands, that is, to the claim of the
individual worker to share equally with his fellows in the
work on hand. In the succeeding pages the situation will
be viewed as it is affected by the application of the principle
of union preference. For not all the employes of a firm
are entitled to share in the work. Nor do those who are
have an equal claim to it. Preference involves distinctions
even within the group of union workers — distinctions based
upon their status as employes of a particular firm and in
a sense analogous to that of seniority in relation to lay-offs
and transfers. Where, as in Chicago, there is virtually com-
plete organization of the workers in the industry, the prin-
ciple of preference gets new significance by becoming at-
tached to other factors than miere union membership. In
this way it comes to serve positive policies and ends for which
the union stands.

Under the general principle of the preferential shop, it is
already clear that union workers have the first claim not
only upon the jobs but upon the work in the shops. This
means not merely that they shall divide among themselves
the work during slack season, as against sharing it with non-
union workers, who are first to be laid off. It also means
that supervisory employes — officials of the management,
members of the firm, foremen, examiners, etc. — shall not be
considered workers and may not participate in the produc-
tive work of the shop in a manner to reduce the share of
any union worker employed there. The implied principle
underlying the application of preference in this field is that
a union worker through the fact of his more or less per-
manent employment with a firm establishes a right to the
job and to all the conditions and privileges pertaining to the
job. These cannot be diminished or diverted by the em-
ployer at a time when work is slack. It is at such times,

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 399

however, that employers are under the greatest temptation
to encroach upon the workers' acquired rights, and the union
must be correspondingly vigilant in protecting these rights.
The question of whether a foreman may during the slack
season perform labor that would otherwise be performed by
union workers came up before the Board of Arbitration208
on appeal from a Trade Board decision as early as the spring
of 1914. The company, contesting the Trade Board's de-
cision in this case claimed that it was an economic waste to
let its foremen remain idle during the slack season when they
might be put at productive labor to the advantage of the
company, and ultimately, of the industry. The union re-
plied that this saving should not be made at the expense of
union members. It held that to permit such practice might
lead to serious results in the future, inasmuch as there were
a large number of supervisory people who under such a rule
could be used to displace an equal number of union work-
men. It held, too, that the matter was covered by the agree-
ment which provided that in the slack season the work should
be equally divided. After weighing all the arguments, Mr.
Williams announced his decision as follows:

" The chairman is impressed with certain points of value in
both these claims (that) are worthy of being conserved. That
economic waste should be avoided is a truism. But the chair-
man feels that to permit the foreman to take the work which the
workers feel they are entitled to under the agreement will cause
more dissatisfaction than would be compensated by the saving.
He, therefore, does not feel warranted in controverting the in-
terpretation of the agreement as made by the Trade Board, or
of reversing the decision. He recommends, however, that the
union be not technical in its objection to foremen performing
such labors as do not run counter to union interests in a tangible
way, and that they be encouraged to be useful in such ways as
may be possible without raising greater difficulties than can be
compensated."

The union's contention in the foregoing case that in the
absence of restrictions upon the right of supervisory officials
to share in the productive work of the shop such officials
might be used to displace union workers, is not as fanciful

as it may sound. On a small scale, any redistribution of
work between workers and their supervisors, though inaugu-
rated in the name of economy, has this effect if it enables
the firm to reduce a section by even one union man. The
way in which such diversion of work may operate to reduce
the employment of union people, whether on week or piece-
work, is illustrated in the following Trade Board case.209

The management in this case had given certain busheling
to the examiners to do which had previously been the work
of the armhole pressers. This was the busheling required
after repairs on the coat by some other section, and there-
fore not to be done by the armhole pressers without com-
pensation. In this case the armhole pressing was by hour
work, and the company stated that it was opposed to having
the section bushel its own work on hour work. The union
contended that this transfer of work from union workers
to the examiner was contrary to agreement and to a ruling
pf the Board of Arbitration.

As to that ruling, however, the chairman of the Trade
Board did not agree that any definite decision had been made
forbidding the examiner or foreman from doing work under
any circumstances. He held that the Board of Arbitration
had confined itself to a strong recommendation that work be
not transferred from the people to a foreman, especially dur-
ing the slack season and where " such labor runs counter to
union interests in a tangible way." In the present case, he
held, " it is clear that turning busheling over to the examiner
affects the interest of the people in a tangible way. It de-
prives them of work and compensation that they formerly
received. By ' busheling ' the Trade Board refers to the
busheling required where the error or defect does not fall in
the armhole presser section. If an armhole presser does not
do his work properly he can be required to bushel it without
additional cost to the company. But armhole pressing when
required because of busheling of another section would seem
to be the legitimate work of armhole pressers."

As part of the same case, the union complained that a boy
who had been doing neck-marking had been transferred to

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 401

another shop, and instead of sending in a requisition the com-
pany had given his work to the examiner. The company
stated that the boy had been transferred to other work with-
out loss to himself, and that, therefore, there was no loss to
the people. In finding the company in error in this case, the
impartial chairman ruled : ' This was a specific task per-
formed by a worker in the union and under the agreement.
The Trade Board cannot see how this position, when vacated
by transfer of the worker, can be filled by the examiner. The
procedure would be to file requisition to fill the vacancy but
not to pass the work to an examiner." In a supplementary
decision the chairman cited in support of this ruling the pro-
vision in the agreement that " whenever the employer needs
additional workers he shall first make application to the
union," etc. And he concluded : " An examiner is not classi-
fied as a worker. He is excluded from the provisions of the
agreement and is not eligible to become a union member by
reason of the fact that he is an examiner. Where a vacancy
occurs, as in this case, the company cannot substitute a non-
union worker for the union man until application has first
been made to the union. The agreement is clear on this
point."

Conflict over the right to the work of a firm may arise not
merely as between union and non-union workers, or as be-
tween union workers and foremen or other officials. It may
arise even as between union workers regularly employed and
other union workers newly hired when work is slack. During
slack seasons every additional worker hired from outside
would naturally reduce the employment and earnings of
those already on the job, whose work such a new-comer would
be permitted to share. Hence, the rule of preference at such
times operates necessarily against some union members and
in favor of others, who have by seniority in employment es-
tablished a prior claim to the available work. Without the
protection of such a rule, union workers of long standing
might find themselves actually displaced from their jobs as a
result of an overcrowding of section produced by the manage-
ment in adding new workers when none were needed. An

402 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

illustration of this type of diversion of work is presented in
the following case.210

The union in this instance complained that the work of
off -pressing on knickerbockers, which until recently had been
done by the regular pressers on trousers, was now being given
to two new men. The union contended that the company
had no right to hire these pressers while regular pressers were
available. The company replied that inasmuch as the work
was hour work they were free to hire whomsoever they wished
to do it. The union then pointed out that there was not suffi-
cient work for the regular pressers and that if any additional
pressing was to be done it should be done by regular pressers.
Investigation showed that the regular pressers were easily
capable of turning out the additional work on knickerbockers.
Under the circumstances the Trade Board sustained the con-
tention of the union and directed the work in question to be
given again to the regular pressers.

The practical problem to which all these efforts of the
union are addressed is that of distributing the available work
among union people in such a way as to secure for them the
greatest possible stability in employment. This is the object
also of the union's policy favoring the inside as over against
the contract shop with the ultimate elimination of the latter.
The principle of preference has been extended so as to make
this policy a recognized policy of the market. The contractor
is the least stable factor in the industry. Not only is he
financially less secure, as a rule, than the independent manu-
facturer. His relatively small investment of capital tends to
make him less conservative both as a business man and as an
employer. Besides, his activity in production tends to
fluctuate more markedly with the seasons than does that of
the inside manufacturer. But whatever the precise reasons
for the policy, preference in the distribution of work is within
certain important limits to be accorded to the inside shops.
Without going into the still unsettled question of the status
under the agreement of the contract shop, we may briefly
indicate in the following pages the manner in which the prin-
ciple of preference operates in this field.

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 403

In the report of a committee of which Professor Tufts was
chairman and which was appointed by him to work out a plan
for dealing with the contractors' situation,211 we find the fol-
lowing recommendation :

" That in slack season, firms shall endeavor to make such dis-
tribution of work between their own shops and their con-
tractors as shall reduce as much as possible irregularity of
employment, and especially prevent the sudden cessation of all
employment for persons who are employed either in their own
shops or by the contractors. Provided, this shall not be under-
stood as opposing a general policy of change from contracting
to work in inside shops."

Inasmuch as union workers are employed in contract shops
no less than in inside shops, it is obvious that the union is
concerned that no discrimination be practiced against its
members irrespective of where they are employed. This con-
sideration must, consequently, limit the application of pref-
erence as against workers in contract shops. As a matter of
practice, therefore, preference of this nature relates prin-
cipally to the future and to new situations, rather than to
conditions already existing and fixed by usage. It has par-
ticular significance, of course, in dull times, when the ques-
tion of dividing the work among the people entitled to it
presents a real problem.

To illustrate: A dispute came to the Trade Board212
over the sending out by a firm of several hundred overcoats
to contractors in the course of a month. The union con-
tended that these garments should have been made in the
firm's own shops, for the workers were being laid off. The
Trade Board had before it the question as to how decisions
are to be made with reference to where work shall be done;
in other words, as to the respective claims upon the work of
the inside and the outside shop workers. The chairman based
his ruling upon the above mentioned report of the committee
to the effect that contract work should not be encouraged
and, by implication, that garments should be made in inside
shops as far as practicable. He stated: " In the spirit of
this report, which has been generally accepted as sound, some

404 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

of the labor managers have advised their firms not to send
out work to new contractors without first conferring with the
union. The results show the wisdom of this policy. In the
interests of harmony and a sound development of the market,
the Trade Board urges that such conference be had in all
cases."

The division of work between the people employed in the
inside shop of a firm and those employed by a contractor to
whom the firm sends part of its work, depends on the claim
to the work established by the contractor through past prac-
tice. Concretely, if a firm has been accustomed to do 60
per cent, of its work in its own shops and to distribute the
other 40 per cent, among two designated contractors in the
proportion of three to one, then, even in slack season, the
workers in the two contract shops are entitled to 30 and 10
per cent., respectively, of all the work this firm may have,
while the people inside will have no grievance if they continue
to receive at least the customary 60 per cent, of the total. If,
however, the firm has no such existing relations with con-
tractors, whose workers may rightfully expect to share in the
work up to the usual proportion, the firm may not send out
work to any new contractor without previous consent from
the union, particularly in slack season. The claim of a con-
tractor's workers to share in a firm's work must be estab-
lished by usage over a period of time. Thus, if in the busy
season the firm has more work than can be conveniently
turned out by its own shops, it may, by an understanding
with the union, send the excess of work to be made in an out-
side shop. After that, whenever the firm is again in the posi-
tion of having to send out work of that character, the same
workers have a first claim upon such work. But no greater
proportion of the firm's work may be sent out even to these
workers than they had previously received from the firm in
question. Where a contractor has been accustomed to re-
ceive a definite proportion of the firm's work, whether in or
out of season, his workers have a claim to share in that work
to the usual extent even while the inside shop is slack.

Some light is thrown upon this somewhat complicated

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 405

system of preference by a few typical cases. In one case218
the union complained that a firm when slack had diverted
work from its coat-shop to two contractors, and requested
that the sending out of work be stopped and the firm's work-
ers be paid for that already made outside. The firm an-
swered that it had sent work out when its workers were
employed full time and, once begun, it should now be per-
mitted to continue to do so when its own shop was somewhat
slack. The evidence submitted to the Trade Board showed
that until very recently the workers had been in the shop 44
hours per week, and also they had had fairly full employ-
ment. In view of these facts the Trade Board ruled that " in
sending out work the firm has not been acting improperly
and it rules adversely on the union's request that the firm's
employes be paid for this work. It rules, further, that while
work is slack the firm may continue to send out the same pro-
portion of its work (namely, 9.6 per cent.), to the two con-
tractors it has sent them since September, but that to send
them a larger proportion or to send coats to another con-
tractor would be improper and contrary to a just claim of its
workers."

In the foregoing decision the Trade Board proceeded on
the assumption that a claim had been established on the
part of the contractors to a definite share in the firm's work,
and that to this extent the workers directly employed by
the firm could claim less than the total of work even when
slack. In the following case no such established relation
between the firm and the contractor existed and it was not,
therefore, at liberty to send him work without special ar-
rangement with the union while any of its own employes
were working short time.

The union complained on this occasion214 that a firm had
sent work to contractors against the orders of the Trade
Board, and that this action had caused a stoppage of the
entire shop. The firm admitted sending work to contrac-
tors but contended that the shop generally had been work-
ing full time with overtime for four weeks prior to the stop-
page, though some of the sections might have less than

406 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

full-time work owing to the character of work being made
in the shop. The Trade Board finding the firm at fault in
the matter held that " the principle is fairly well estab-
lished that work is not to be sent outside when the people
in the inside shop are working short time. This does not
apply, of course, in cases where the division of work be-
tween inside and outside shops has been recognized or where
certain work has been made outside regularly. In this case
there is no question that the work sent outside belonged to
the inside shop."

A certain preference is due to the workers in the inside
shop even where by agreement or usage a firm has estab-
lished definite relations with a contractor, in accordance
with which the firm is entitled to send work out to such
contractor in a fixed proportion of its total work. For this
proportion is intended as a practical maximum, not to be
exceeded even temporarily. The firm may not withhold
work from its inside shop and send its garments out to con-
tractors in excess of the established proportion. This issue
came up before the Trade Board215 through the complaint
of the union that a certain firm had closed down its inside
coat shop and was sending out its work to outside shops.
The work sent out in this case was rush work. The firm was
the one in whose favor the Trade Board had previously
ruled (see p. 405), permitting it to send not to exceed
9.6 per cent, of its coats to contractors. The firm, appar-
ently without the knowledge of the labor manager, had
placed its own interpretation upon that decision and had
sent more than 15 per cent, of its work out, expecting to
even this up later. The impartial chairman disallowed
such procedure, stating: 'This was not the intention of
the Trade Board. It did not expect the firm to go ahead,
exceed the percentage allowed, and even up in the course
of time." The Board therefore directed that no more coats
be sent to contractors until the total sent them since the
date of the previous decision no longer exceeded 9.6 per
cent, of the total, and from that time forth to remain within
the percentage allowed.

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 407

Several months later this firm was again the subject of
complaint.216 The union charged that the firm was about
to close its tailor shop and to send the work to contractors.
The union requested the Trade Board to direct that no
work be sent outside while the tailor shop was closed. The
firm argued that it was privileged by Trade Board decision
to send 9.6 per cent, of its coats to contractors; that for
several weeks no coats had been sent out; that the firm had
fallen below the permitted quota; and that the number to
be sent out while the tailor shop was closed would not bring
the total above the percentage authorized by the Trade
Board. The chairman of the Trade Board, taking all the
circumstances of the case into account, ruled against the
position of the firm both on the ground of its technical
rights and on the score of expediency. The chairman ruled
that " while the firm may close the tailor shop if it chooses,
it may not send the work out to contractors while the shop
is closed."

Within a few weeks of this decision the union com-
plained217 of its violation by the firm and requested that the
people be paid for work that should have been given them.
The firm admitted sending out some work but stated that
the bulk of the work sent out consisted of Palm Beach
coats, which had not been made in the inside shop, and
that the only other work sent out was rush orders which
would have cost the firm valuable patronage if delayed.
In ruling upon this complaint, the chairman stated: "This
is not the first time that this firm has chosen to violate a
decision of the Trade Board. The firm must have known
that it would have to meet the problem of rush orders and
should have taken the matter up with the union or the Trade
Board and not have gone ahead in the face of a Trade
Board decision. The Board rules that * * * the Palm
Beach coats not made inside previously might be sent out-
side during the week the shop was closed without violating
the decision. The workers are to be paid for the other
coats sent outside while the shop was closed."

An aggravated form of diversion of work, even more

408 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

serious than a violation of the preferential principle within
the shop, is the sending by a firm of its work to a non-union
outside shop. Non-union workers have, of course, no claim
to share during slack season in the work of a firm operating
under the agreement with the union. Nor has such a firm
a right to send any of its work at any time to a contractor
who does not employ union workers, whether the purpose
be to reduce costs or not. The only exception to this rule
is a situation in which no union contractor is available to do
the work required by the firm, and even then an under-
standing with the union is called for.

A case in point218 is one in which the union requested the
Trade Board to order a certain firm to discontinue sending
work to a non-union shop. The firm disclaimed knowledge
of whether the shop was union or non-union until complaint
and investigation, after which it had withheld further work
pending the hearing. The chairman of the Trade Board
stated at the hearing that " under the preferential clause
of the agreement, firms are to give preference to contractors
operating union shops. This places upon the firm the re-
sponsibility of ascertaining in advance whether the con-
tractor is operating a union or a non-union shop." The
Board directed that no more work be sent to this contrac-
tor. The question, of whether union contractors were avail-
able or whether the work could be made inside was left to
be met jointly by the firm and the union.

In a competitive industry in which labor costs are a fac-
tor of weight, it is to be expected that some manufacturers
will seek an advantage over competitors by an attempt to
evade the union regulations and labor standards. One
method of doing this without declaring open war upon the
union is to divert some distinct part of their work to non-
union shops and to justify this on technical grounds. The
agreement, however, is broad enough in its scope to prohibit
any such evasion. The preference principle contemplates
that whatever work a manufacturer who is a party to the
agreement may have, belongs of right to union workers.

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 409

A house cannot be part union and part non-union if the
preferential shop is not to break down.

The issue has arisen in the Chicago market on several
occasions. In one case219 the union raised a question with
the Board of Arbitration as to contract work being placed
by X and Co. with non-union firms. Investigation showed
that a dual organization was being maintained. Under the
name of X and Co. the firm had been and was doing a special
order business as always, the suits being cut and trimmed
in its own shop and the garments then sent into union con-
tract shops to be manufactured. Some weeks previous to
the complaint, however, the same people had organized as
Y and Z to engage in a mail order business. This firm was
having all of its manufacture, including cutting, done by
contractors. Among the contractors were two union houses
in Chicago, a well-known non-union house in Chicago, and
a non-union establishment in a southern state. The union
contended that its agreement covered men's and children's
overcoats, suits and pants manufactured by X & Co., and
that those manufacured for it and distributed under the
name of Y and Z were a part of its business. It contended
that to have any part of these manufactured in non-union
houses here or elsewhere was a violation of the agreement.

In deciding this question the Board of Arbitration sus-
tained the union's contention, ruling that " the agreement
between X and Co. and the union covers all men's and chil-
dren's overcoats, suits and pants manufactured by X and
Co. It matters not that new lines of these are taken on or
how they are distributed. It (the Board) rules specifically
that the work sent into contract shops and then distributed
under the name of Y and Z is covered by the agreement
and must be made in union shops. It is obvious that to rule
otherwise would be to open a loop-hole which would destroy
the agreement in effect. The Board directs that all 'woolens'
in all non-union shops and as yet uncut shall at once be
withdrawn and that henceforth none shall be sent to any
non-union house. This applies both to houses in Chicago
and to those outside. No penalty is imposed in this case

410 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

because of the absence of proof of improper intent, and
because this is the first case of the kind to come before the
impartial machinery of this market."

The second case was soon to follow, however.220 The
union complained that B and Co. had been violating the
agreement by sending out work to be cut, trimmed and
made in a non-union house, and requested that this be
stopped, compensation ordered, and proper discipline im-
posed. The answer made by the firm was that a distinct
company, not B and Co. and not under agreement with the
union, had sent out the work in question, and that this dis-
tinct company, C and Co., had a right to do what it had been
doing.

The chairman of the Board of Arbitration ruled against
the contention of the management that C and Co. was sep-
arate and distinct from B and Co., had no agreement with
the union, and could send its work where and as it wished.

" The fact is that while there are two corporations, the one
is an off-shoot of the other and is being used to solve the prob-
lem of this other; their finances are related; their management
and control are one. For the purpose of manufacture they are
to be regarded as one. To rule otherwise would be to open a
loop-hole which would make it possible for any firm to rid itself
of the responsibilities it has assumed under the existing agree-
ment. Moreover, the manufacture of the C line and the manu-
facture of the B line were conducted as one business last year.
Sending out the C work this year is a diversion of work from
B's workers. It may not be done.

" * * * The work was sent into the non-union house under
circumstances that the chairman feels a penalty should be
imposed. He, therefore, orders not only that there be no fur-
ther violation of the agreement, but also that the firm shall pay
$2.50 for each suit sent to date into this non-union house. This
is to be paid to the firm's workers with claims upon this work,
To what workers it shall be paid, and how it shall be divided
among them, will be arranged in conference by the labor man-
ager for the firm, a representative of the union, and the chair-
man."

The rule that the union workers of a firm have a claim
upon all the productive work that the firm may have to give,

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 411

applies particularly to such work as has been done by them
on previous occasions since the signing of the agreement.
In such a case the workers' claim upon the work in question
is not only established by implication through the prefer-
ential provisions of the agreement. It has the additional
sanction of past practice to support it. The manufacturer
is, therefore, not free to send out any work thus belonging
to his union employes, except such as is in excess of his
capacity, and to have it done at reduced cost elsewhere.
Especially where the outside house is a non-union house —
even though no union contractor be available for the work —
the recent decisions of the impartial chairman on the subject
stamp such diversion of work as clearly unlawful. The
problem has arisen particularly in connection with canvases
and linings, which some firms have been making in their
own shops. Finding that they could obtain them more
economically outside through specialty houses employing
non-union help, some of these firms have proceeded to send
out their linings and similar parts to be made up under con-
tract or bought them ready-made according to specification.
One of the first cases of this particular type221 brought
to the attention of the impartial chairman as Case No. 757
was that of a firm which had sent out one-piece linings to
be made in a non-union house. The Trade Board referred
the case to the Board of Arbitration as involving a market
problem, and Chairman Millis ruled as follows:

" The question here is whether a firm making linings when
the agreement was signed can, in the interest of economy, divert
this work to an outside house when this reduces the amount of
employment for the firm's union workers. The general prin-
ciple involved has become fairly well defined and recognized in
the market. Work may not be transferred by one firm to
another for the sake of reducing costs because it reduces the
amount of work available for the firm's union workers."

After this decision had been rendered the union endeavored
to have it applied generally in the market wherever there
had been a diversion of work made inside at the time or
since the existing agreements were signed. In this the union

412 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

was not successful, so that it was obliged to file similar com-
plaint against a number of other firms which were not oper-
ating in accordance with the decision. Extended argument
by both sides before the full Board of Arbitration222 led to
a decision from which the representative of the firms on the
Board dissented but which reaffirmed the ruling of the Chair-
man in Case No. 757a. The decision set forth, among other
things, the following:

" The Board cannot rule otherwise than that the agreement
covers for each house the different branches and parts of manu-
facture engaged in at the time the agreements were entered into.
If it were ruled that some part of manufacture was not covered
by the agreement it would be to rule that any part a firm
wished to divert was not covered by the agreement, unless the
Board should legislate and arbitrarily say that certain things
would be excepted. The Board is not a legislative body.

" The Board and the Trade Board have made rulings in dif-
ferent types of cases that have direct bearing on this situation
insofar as it involves diversion of work, without understand-
ing, to be made under contract. More than once has it been
ruled that a firm may not send out work to be done under con-
tract except that in excess of its capacity. The only excepr
tion made is where a firm has all the time divided its work
between its own shop and a contract shop. There the cus-
tomary division has been approved. The ruling has been ac-
cepted. In the cases now before the Board it has not been a
question of getting an excess of work made up but a question
of getting it done more economically and at less cost. In con-
tract cases the rulings have been consistent to the effect that a
firm may not divert garments from its shops to a contract shop
merely to save costs.

" Because of the above reason and the feeling that any diver-
sion of work from union workers would lead very naturally to
complications and loss of good will, which is a far larger asset
than any savings from having linings and canvas fronts made
up under contract, the Board rules as did the Chairman in
No. 757a * * *"

The foregoing decisions establish firmly the principle that
no manufacturer under agreement with the union may send
out work to non-union houses without the consent of the
organization. Nor, on the other hand, may such a manu-
facturer accept work to be done either in his own shops or

PRINCIPLE OF UNION PREFERENCE 418

with his assistance in other shops, for the account of a house
upon which the union has declared a strike. For the mak-
ing of such "unfair" work is not only giving aid to the
strike-bound firm against the union in the struggle. It is
also contributing to that extent to the permanent diversion
of work from the union workers who have a right to it. In the
absence of an agreement outlawing the work of an "unfair"
house, the union would have to be conceded the right to
strike against any manufacturer who knowingly joined in
the attack upon the union by accepting such work. As it is,
this right of direct action is superseded in Chicago by the
assumption by the impartial machinery of jurisdiction over
all such cases. In one instance223 the workers in a certain
house, believing that the work in the shop originated in a
strike-bound house with the approval of the union stopped
work in order to force its abandonment. When the case came
to the Trade Board the chairman gave the following ruling :

" Chicago manufacturers have agreed that no strike-bound
work shall be done in this market. The position of the Trade
Board with respect to such work has been stated clearly in past
decisions. It is not only unnecessary for the union to take sum-
mary action on its own initiative, but such action amounts to
saying that, however willing the union may be to submit other
questions, it is unwilling to submit the question of strike-bound
work to the impartial machinery * * * The Trade Board
directs that hereafter in case of suspected strike-bound work
the union take the matter up with the General Labor Manager.
It shall be given precedence over all other business, and if it
cannot be adjusted in 24 hours it shall be brought to the Trade
Board. An emergency hearing will be held and if there is rea-
son to believe that the work is strike-bound the Board will direct
that the work be stopped until the facts can be ascertained."

p

O

£

O

O

T3

O)
-M

ef

.0 ,,

II
I §

O ?

(Hi i

OF rnt

ILLINOIS

APPENDIX I

INDEX TO DECISIONS or IMPARTIAL MACHINERY CITED IN PART III

(a) (b) (c) Date.

1 H 393 5-1-1921

2 H 115a ll-23-'16

3 K 701 2-17-'19

4 C H 10- 7-'19

5 C 407 10-20-'20

6 C 130 . 4- 6-'20

7 C 963 & 964 10- 1-'21

8 C 854 7-23-'21

9 H BA 7-20-'14

10 H 364a 7-16-'17

1 1 H 293a . . 6-17-'15

12 H 661a 2-25-'19

18 H 69a 3-14-'21

14 H 302 2-22-'21

15 H 799 10- 7-'20

16 H 382a 5- 9-'21

17 H 133a 11-15-'16

18 H BA no date

19 H 111 9- 7-'20

20 H 170 10-23-'20

21 C 365 9-30-'20

22 C 692 4-12-'21

23 C 424 11- 4-'20

24 C 809 6-18-'21

25 C 707a & 19d 5-26-'21

26 C 610a 3-16-'21

27 C 802 6-14-'21

28 C 751 5-23-'21

(a) Numbers in this column refer to corresponding numbers printed above the

line in the text in connection with decisions cited.

(b) This column indicates the jurisdiction of the Board making the decision,

e. g., H^Hart, Schaffner and Marx ; C=Chicago market exclusive of
Hart, Schaffner and Marx.

(c) This column identifies the decision by its own serial number.

" BA " stands for Board of Arbitration as the source of the decision,

when it has no serial number.
" TB " stands for Trade Board. Wherever the number alone is used, the

decision is by the Trade Board.

"a" indicates that decision is by Board of Arbitration on appeal;
" d " that it is decided directly by the Board of Arbitration.

416 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

(a) (b) (c) Date.

29 C 968 9-24-'21

30 C 458 12- 2-'20

31 C 610a 3-16-'21

32 H 60 7-16-'20

33 C 893 8- 6-'21

34 C 480 12-23-'20

35 C 764 & 768 6-16-'21

36 H BA 5- 8-'21

37 H 66 8- 4-'20

38 C 849 7- 9-'21

39 C 980 9-10-'21

40 C 970 9- 7-'21

41 C 486 12-27-'20

42 H TB 9- 5-'13

43 H 370a 10-11-'17

44 H 690a Feb. 1919

45 H 905 1-15-'20

46 H 711a 4- 8-'19

47 H 353a 3-26-'21

48 H 349 3-19-'21

49 C 1153 12-12-'21

50 H 905a 2- 3-'20

51 C 471 12-10-'20

52 C 627 3-12-'21

53 C 803 6-19-'21

54 H 562a 4- 4-'18

55 C 789 6- 7-'21

56 C 769 5-21-'21

57 C 377 10- 6-'20

58 C 454 12- 1-'20

59 C 804 6-14-'21

60 C 633 3-14-'21

61 C 707a & 19d 5-26-'21

62 C 805 6-13-'21

63 C 611 3-10-'21

64 C 814 & 818 6-22-'21

65 C 870 7-20-'21

66 C 873 & 874 7-21-'21

67 C 863 8- 5-'21

68 C 824 6-25-'21

69 H 142 . 10- 8-'20

70 H 321 2- 4-'21

71 H 283 2-ll-'21

72 C 695 .... 4-14-'21

APPENDIX I 417

(a) (b) (c) Date.

73 C 607 3-12-'21

74 H BA 5- 8-'21

75 C 368 10- 7-'20

76 H 691a 2-25-'19

77 C 46a 2-26-'20

78 C 458 12- 2-'20

79 C 893 8- 6-'21

80 C 729 5-21-'21

81 H 350 3-17-'21

82 H 139 10- 4-'20

83 H 342 3- 8-'21

84 C 445 & 446 12- 4-'20

85 C 855 7-14-'21

86 C 794 6-14-'21

87 C 852 7-13-'21

88 C 867 7-19-'21

89 C 893 8- 6-'21

90 C 479 12-23-'20

91 H 168a 1- 8-'15

92 H 172 11- 6-'20

93 H 365a 2-25-'16

94 H Joint Memo 11- 7-'17

95 H 525a 2-27-'18

96 H 87a 9-20-'18

97 C 834 7-22-'21

98 H BA 6-23-'15

99 H BA 4- 2-'15

100 H BA 6-21-'16

101 H BA ll-23-'16

102 H 253a 3-16-'21

103 H BA 6- 8-'20

104 H 522a 5- 8-'18

105 C 54 l-28-'20

106 H 167 10-28-'20

107 H BA 6- 5-'14

108 C 524 3-ll-'21

109 C 882 7-29-'21

110 C 884 8- 6-'21

111 C 823 7- 9-'21

112 C 1133 12-14-'21

113 C 876 8- 8-'21

114 C 891 8- 9-'21

115 C 897 8- 4-'21

116 C 577 . 3- 9-'21

418 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

(a) (b) (c) Date.

117 C 890 8- 3-'21

118 C 885 8-15-'21

119 C 641 3-10-'21

120 C 889 7-29-'21

121 C 886 8-15-'21

122 C 910 8-10-'21

123 C 800 6-21-'21

124 C 868 8- 3-'21

125 H 90 8-20-'20

126 C 845 7- 9-'21

127 H 176 11-10-'20

128 H 343 3- 8-'21

129 H 428 6- 3-'21

130 H BA 3-29-'17

131 C 884 7-29-'21

132 H 327 6- 3-'21

133 C 883 8- 6-'21

134 H 982 4-30-'20

135 C 612 3-12-'21

136 C 493 1- 4-'21

137 H 289 2-17-'21

138 C 862 7-22-'21

139 H 136 10- 4-'20

140 H 275 2-ll-'21

141 H 199a 3-12-'17

1 42 H 445a 12-12-'17

143 H 325 4-30-'21

144 C&H BA 12-22-'19

145 C&H 5d 2-25-'20

146 C lOd 3-31-'20

147 C ' 9d 4-14-'20

148 C&H BA 4-14-'21

149 C 18d 5-10-'21

150 C 20d 7- 5-'21

151 C 21d 7- 5-'21

152 H BA 8-30-'13

153 H 326 2-24-'21

154 H 381 4- 8-'21

155 C 881 8- 2-'21

156 C 669 4- 4-'21

157 C 736 5- 9-'21

158 C 404 11- 2-'20

159 H 417a 8-28-'17

160 C 859 . 7-22-'21

APPENDIX I 419

(a) (b) (c) Date.

161 H 335a 5-31-'17

162 H 967 4- 2-'20

163 H 383 4-19-'21

164 H 392a 3-21-'21

165 H 193a 5- 2-'21

166 H 456a 11-15-'17

167 H 953 3-17-'20

168 C 835 7-13-'21

169 C 942 9- 6-'21

170 C 318a, 378a, 507a 7-16-'21

171 C 545 2-14-'21

172 C 786 5-26-'21

173 H 398a 8-16-'17

174 H 436a 10- 3-'17

175 C 31 ll-29-'19

176 H 352a 6-29-'17

177 C 1024 10-11-'21

178 C 201a 6- -'20

179 H BA 8-23-'20

180 H 296a . - -'15

181 H 293 5-16-'21

182 H 145 11- 9-'20

183 H 314 2-28-'21

184 H 115 7- 7-'20

185 H 710 3-15-'19

186 H BA 4- 3-'18

187 H 234a 5- 2-'21

188 C 27 11-20-'19

189 C 27a 3-30-'20

190 C 517 l-29-'21

191 C 719 4-27-'21

192 H BA 8-30-'13

193 C 351 9-22-'20

194 C 40 12-24-'19

195 H 303 2-18-'21

196 H 160 10-22-'2()

197 C 629 3-ll-'21

198 H BA 6-17-'15

199 C 858 8- 8-'21

200 C 707 5-16-'21

201 C 285 9-17-'20

202 C 1150 12-14-'21

203 C 502 1-12-'21

204 C 1151 12- 8-'21

420 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

(a) (b) (c) Date.

205 C 1199 l-28-'22

206 C 12d 8-12-'20

207 C 761 5-13-'21

208 H 78a 4-17-'14

209 H 151 10-14-'20

210 H 866 12- 1-'19

211 C&H 3d-suppl 3- 3-'20

212 C 434 11-20-'20

213 C 437 ll-26-'20

214 C 1082 & 1083 12-12-'21

215 C 522 1-20-'21

216 C 839 6-30-'21

217 C 857 7-20-'21

218 C 1021 10-25-'21

219 C 15d 2-15-'21

220 C 16d 2-17-'21

221 C 757a 8-26-'21

222 C 23d ll-29-'21

223 C 638 . 3-17-'21

APPENDIX II

A comparison of the earnings for a full-time week re-
ceived by the Chicago clothing workers in 1911, and in Sep-
tember, 1919, immediately after the complete organization
of the Chicago clothing industry, is given in the following
tables. The charts appearing in chapter VII are based upon
these data:

TABLE 1

DISTRIBUTION OF MEN WORKERS IN TAILOR SHOPS BY WAGE GROUPS,

1911

Percentage of
Workers Receiving
E arning Group . Amounts Specified .

Under $5 .5

$ 5 and under $10 12.8

10 " « 15 53.4

15 " " 20 27.5

20 " over 5.8

TABLE 2

DISTRIBUTION 01

Earning Gn
Under $
$ 5 but
10 "
15 "
20 "
25 "
30 "
35 "
40 "
45 "
50 "
55 "
60 "
65 and

? MEN WORKERS IN TAILOR SHOPS BY WAGE GROUPS,
SEPTEMBER, 1919
Percentage of
Workers Receiving
cmp. Amounts Specified.
5 0

under
u

u

u
M
M
ft

«
M
«
M

<(

over

$10

0

15

0.5

20

1.5

25

3.8

30

12.6

35

12.6

40

14.6

45

19.2

50

16.2

55

8.4

60

5.1

65

3.1

2.5

422 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

TABLE 3

DISTRIBUTION OF WOMEN WORKERS IN TAILOR SHOPS BY WAGE

GROUPS, 1911

Percentage of
Workers Receiving
Wage Group. Amounts Specified.

Under $5 8.3

$ 5 but under $10 40.8

10 " " 15 45.5

15 and over. . 5.5

TABLE 4

DISTRIBUTION OF WOMEN WORKERS IN TAILOR SHOPS BY WAGE
GROUPS, SEPTEMBER, 1919

Percentage of
Workers Receiving
Wage Group. Amounts Specified.

Under $5 0

$ 5 but under $10 0

10 " " 15 5.2

15 " " 20 13.7

20 " " 25 22.6

25 " " 30 23.4

30 " " 35 18.1

35 " " 40 . 8.7

40 " " 45 5.1

45 " " 50 1.7

50 " " 55 0.6

55 " «< 60 1.1

60 " " 65 0.3

65 and over 0.1

APPENDIX II 428

TABLE 5

DISTRIBUTION OF CUTTERS BY WAGE GROUPS, 1911

Percentage of .

Workers Receiving

Wage Group. Amounts Specifier].

Under $5 0

$ 5 but under $10 0

10 " " 15 15.0

15 " " 20 27.6

20 " " 25 29.2

25 " " 30 23.2

30 and over. . 5.0

TABLE 6

DISTRIBUTION OF CUTTERS BY WAGE GROUPS, SEPTEMBER, 1919

Percentage of
Workers Receiving
Earning Group. Amounts Specified.

Under $5 0

$ 5 but under $10 0

10 " " 15 0

15 " " 20 0

20 " " 25 2.4

25 " " 30 2.4

30 " " 35 7.0

35 " « 40 75.7

40 " " 45 10.9

45 " " 50.. 1.2

424 CLOTHING WORKERS OF CHICAGO

TABLE 7

DISTRIBUTION or WORKERS BY WAGE GROUPS, MEN AND WOMEN IN
TAILOR SHOPS, AND CUTTERS, COMBINED, 1911

Percentage of
Workers Receiving
Earning Group. Amounts Specified.

Under $5 4.9

$ 5 but under $10 27 . 1

10 " " 15 44.7

15 " " 20 15.1

20 " " 25 5.0

25 " " 30 2.5

30 and over . . 0.5

TABLE 8

DISTRIBUTION OF WORKERS BY WTAGE GROUPS, MEN AND WOMEN IN
TAILOR SHOPS, AND CUTTERS, COMBINED, SEPTEMBER, 1919

Earning Group.
Under $ 5 . . .

Percentage of
Workers Receiving
Amounts Specified.
0

Under $10

0

$10 but under

$15

3.7

15 " "

20

7.4

20 " "

25

13.2

25 " "

30

17.0

30 " "

35

16.6

35 " "

40

20 . 0

40 " "

45 . . . .

10.0

45 " "

50

5.9

50 " "

55

2.8

55 " "

60

1.8

60 " "

65

1.0

65 and over.

0.8

M. B. Brown Printing & Binding Co.,
New York.

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA